#��you have a chance to advocate for certain policies to change and evolve’ | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

gonzalezlegalpc · 5 months

Text

5 Reasons Why You Should Hire an Immigration Lawyer for US Citizenship

I. Introduction

Embarking on the journey towards US citizenship involves navigating a complex and ever-changing legal landscape. For individuals aspiring to become US citizens, seeking the expertise of an immigration lawyer is not just advisable; it can be a crucial step towards achieving their goal. In this blog post, we will explore five compelling reasons why hiring an immigration lawyer, such as Gonzalez Legal, can make a significant difference in your quest for US citizenship.

1. Expert Guidance Through Immigration Law Complexity

The realm of immigration law is intricate and continually evolving. A qualified immigration lawyer provides invaluable expertise, offering a clear understanding of the complex legal processes involved in obtaining US citizenship. From deciphering intricate forms to understanding the ever-changing immigration policies, a Boston immigration lawyer from Gonzalez Legal can be your trusted guide.

2. Tailored Solutions to Individual Cases

Every immigration case is unique, and a one-size-fits-all approach often falls short. Immigration solutions lawyers specialize in crafting personalized strategies based on the specific details of your case. Whether you are facing challenges with visas, green cards, or citizenship applications, a seasoned immigration lawyer can assess your situation and tailor a plan that aligns with your goals.

3. Streamlining the Immigration Process

Navigating through the bureaucratic maze of immigration paperwork can be overwhelming. An immigration lawyer consultation can streamline the entire process, ensuring that all necessary documents are submitted accurately and promptly. This not only saves time but also minimizes the risk of application rejections or delays due to errors or omissions.

4. Handling Complex Legal Procedures

Certain immigration cases involve intricate legal procedures that demand a deep understanding of the law. When faced with complications, such as removal proceedings or inadmissibility issues, having an experienced immigration lawyer by your side becomes imperative. Gonzalez Legal specializes in handling complex legal matters, providing you with a strong legal advocate to navigate through challenges.

5. Protection Against Immigration Pitfalls

The immigration landscape is filled with potential pitfalls that can jeopardize your chances of obtaining US citizenship. From overlooked details in applications to unforeseen legal obstacles, an immigration lawyer acts as a safeguard against potential pitfalls. By having an advocate who is well-versed in immigration law, you can avoid common mistakes that might otherwise hinder your progress.

Your First Step Towards Success

Embarking on the journey towards US citizenship begins with a crucial step – an immigration lawyer consultation. This initial meeting sets the foundation for a successful partnership, allowing you to discuss your goals, concerns, and unique circumstances. Gonzalez Legal offers comprehensive immigration lawyer consultations, providing you with the opportunity to understand how their expertise aligns with your needs.

During the consultation, the experienced team at Gonzalez Legal will assess the specifics of your case, answer any questions you may have, and outline a tailored strategy to achieve your immigration goals. This personalized approach ensures that you receive the guidance you need from the very beginning, setting the stage for a smooth and efficient immigration process.

Investing in Your Future

Investing in the services of an immigration lawyer is an investment in your future. As you embark on the path toward US citizenship, the guidance and support of a qualified legal professional can make all the difference. With us, you are not just hiring an immigration lawyer; you are securing a partner dedicated to your success.

The expertise of a Boston immigration lawyer from Gonzalez Legal goes beyond simple legal advice. It encompasses a commitment to understanding your unique circumstances, navigating the complexities of immigration law on your behalf, and advocating for your rights throughout the process. By choosing to hire an immigration lawyer, you are taking a proactive step towards a future where your American dream becomes a reality.

The key advantages of hiring an immigration lawyer.

One of the key advantages of hiring an immigration lawyer is the tailored approach they bring to each case. Your journey toward US citizenship is as unique as you are, and a one-size-fits-all strategy is unlikely to yield the best results. Gonzalez Legal recognizes the importance of personalized solutions, ensuring that your case receives the attention and care it deserves.

The immigration solutions lawyers at Gonzalez Legal pride themselves on their ability to analyze the intricacies of your case and develop a strategy that aligns with your specific goals. From family-sponsored immigration to employment-based visas, our expertise covers a wide range of immigration scenarios. By choosing a lawyer who specializes in immigration solutions, you are opting for a customized approach that maximizes your chances of success.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the decision to hire an immigration lawyer, especially one from Gonzalez Legal, can be a game-changer in your pursuit of US citizenship. From expert guidance through the complexities of immigration law to tailored solutions that address the nuances of your case, the benefits are manifold. Streamlining the immigration process, handling complex legal procedures, and safeguarding against pitfalls, an immigration lawyer becomes your advocate, ensuring that your journey toward US citizenship is as smooth and successful as possible.

Embark on your path to US citizenship with confidence, knowing that you have a dedicated partner in Gonzalez Legal. Schedule an immigration lawyer consultation today and take the first step towards realizing your American dream. Your future awaits, and with the right immigration lawyer by your side, success is not just a possibility – it’s a probability.

Originally published at- https://gonzalezlegaloffice.com/5-reasons-why-you-should-hire-an-immigration-lawyer-for-us-citizenship/

#Boston immigration lawyer #hiring an immigration lawyer #immigration lawyer consultation #immigration solutions lawyer

0 notes

kavinonoel · 4 years

Text

SEO VS PPC Comparison? boost your website traffic

SEO ( Search Engine Optimization )

Human beings love to answer and The it-engaged people seem to take their defense opinions to a whole new level. Those conflicts are often very beneficial to the consumer. But sometimes it is more complicated to choose the best option than simply one hand.

We received an inquiry last week from an owner of e-commerce business, who had been in the market for 2 years. We issued a call to her after sending our Free Quote to find out what she thinks about our offer. We couldn’t help during the phone call but felt she was very suspicious about the SEO. As it turned out, the latter was her first attempt at organic methods, which she agreed to try as a result of recommendation from her buddy.

There was a reason for her reluctance toward Search Engine Optimization. Since we have learnt, she has heavily invested in a PPC campaign run by a local agency for the past two years. They informed her that SEO is a really unsure method of promoting her company, and that AdWords will also do better.And there was a good reason why they needed this lack of trust of organic methods planted in the minds of customers. Simply put, they really don’t have SEO specialists at home, so they wanted to set up some kind of insurance scheme to discourage their people from leaving elsewhere for this service.

This example is pretty much an overview of what has been jumping on within the e-marketing world over the last few years. Unfortunately, it does nothing but add to a endless list of cultures and conflicts among both two groups behind competitive IT products – like Apple vs. Microsoft, Xbox vs. Playstation, and so on.Somebody can argue that these holy wars do have some good outcomes – it is one of the most established rules of the free market that competition has a huge effect on quality and price and benefits customers a huge amount.

Even so, in our case, the same merits do not appear to apply. But to recognize why, let’s just have a quick compilation of both service providers.

SEO ( Search Engine Optimization )

Search Engine Optimization is now mainly focuses only on the source code of a website. Back in the early days, it was far more important to make sure which your business came up in search results exactly as you wanted, rather than worry about competition. Mostly because there wasn’t anything like people.The pioneers of online marketing had the undebatable advantage being the only ones at that stage, so getting all the lights on them was not a big issue.

Fast forward a couple of months ahead, and now all of a sudden, everyone’s online. No matter what kind of product or service your business offers to the public, if you don’t have an online presence, you have very little chance of success. That’s because most of the people these days are searching for what they might be after using Google rather than yellow pages.

As a result, SEO has evolved into a far more complex procedure, cover a wide number of steps which need to be completed in order to successfully obtain one of search results mostly on page. Due to the constantly changing policies of the search engine to regard to what is allowed as a promotional technique, a line has been drawn between White Hat and Black Hat SEO, the latter involving forbidden methods. by Google.

Unfortunately, in this high ranking race, some people seem to have forgotten the most important factor in e-commerce: the customer’s user experience. Some agencies convince their clients to dedicate massive budgets to campaigns which do not always use them as the expected return – even though it might seems like occupying high positions in the results listings is a strong reason for just a successful business.

But it isn’t. Much like attracting hundreds of neighbors to an open house with promises of free cookies does not guarantee a better offer. Those blind campaigns, focused solely on search engines, gave SEO some bad press and pushed Google to respond by taking some serious action: not providing search keywords in http examples.

A successful Seo strategy requires both studies: the website and the online community around it. It is only through comparing these two factors how you can expect to achieve the ultimate goal, which is really a continuous spike in your business performance, not just in search history.

PPC ( Pay-Per-Click Advertising )

Google introduced AdWords three years after the launch of the search engine as company’s main source of revenue. AdWords Principal shows customer ads around the natural search results for a given set of keywords. This provides user a quick and easy way to appear online with a new website or brand name, but it comes at the cost.Every time a user clicks on your link, you are charged a certain amount of money – hence the PPC (Pay Per Click) abbreviation.

At the first look, it seems that AdWords can deliver advertising results in a convincing way without all the headaches that come with SEO. You can appear almost immediately at the top of the search by simply offering to pay the most per click than your competition.The whole simple method had also affected a number of advertisers who have quickly discovered how they can promote their accounts of almost no IT expertise. Some of these agencies are becoming great advocates of PPC – all they required was brainwashing to make sure that their customers don’t look the most at SEO.

This comfort of appearing only at top of the search results simply by being able to pay more than the others quickly became a concern for Google. For most users of their search engine, the position of the website is strongly connected to its quality and popularity, trying to make it much too simple for certain types of pages to attract the attention of the massesTalk about fraudsters, spammers, low-quality landing pages and all kinds of content that profited from being legitimized by high search results.

Fortunately, Google has handled the situation quite well, and a few years after the launch of AdWords, some preventive measures have been introduced. They turned out to be quite revolutionary for the whole PPC market: to cut a long story short, they dethroned rates as the only dominant factors for ad positions.Instead, more attention was paid to the quality of both the advertised websites and the ads themselves. Components such as landing page status, historic click through rate and promotional text relevance (to keywords) came into play in the form of Quality Score. The higher the QS value of your campaign, the lower the asking prices for page one immersion.

Changes introduced by Google, along with some policy changes, had a big effect on PPC campaigns. By promoting innovation and original, high-quality content, they opened a window of opportunity for smaller advertisers and more ambitious agencies. Other, dishonest companies have decided to hide it from their customers, putting the blame for rising rates on growing competition.

When two worlds are colliding Recent developments in search engine algorithms and search engine optimization techniques tend to reward campaigns using both SEO and PPC. A good example of this theory is the handling of non-provided keyword issues. What started out as two very different approaches to e-commerce marketing are now two techniques with many similarities, sharing many of their characteristics.

The direct result of this marriage is the increasing importance of the quality and originality of content on the websites of customers. This affects both the conversion ratios and the ROIs of your customers. It just makes browsing the World Wide Web a better experience for all of us.

My final recommendation would always be to consider joint campaigns, consisting of both SEO and PPC. This provides the SEO agency a wider choice of tools and, as a result, often reduces the cost of these two promotions than if they were run separately. I would also recommend that you be wary of anyone trying to discourage you from any of them.

Thanks for visiting @ our article content & tell us more topic if you wanna more information related digital marketing. We are ready to reveal online marketing strategy.

#SEO #PPC #digitalmarketing #onlinemarketing #SEO Services #PPC Services

3 notes · View notes

ashandboneca · 5 years

Text

Unsolicited Criticism

So a few years ago, I dealt with some criticism in my personal life over my choices. I’m a NB queer witch who is (not legally) married to two people. It was a bit of a thing, but it has ended my relationship with an extended family member. I had some other things happening in another sect of my more immediate family that I did not agree with, but I held my tongue (because it’s none of my business) which was kind of weird as well.

So I got to thinking, because I like to take things like people being assholes and turn it into a lesson that can apply to other people and other situations. There should be a way to turn something wretched into something you can learn from. It’s not about putting a positive spin on things - sometimes, things just suck and there is no turning that frown upside-down. It’s about taking the situation, removing the emotion from it, and using it as a blueprint for other, similar situations so you can have a plan for how to deal with these things that crop up in the future.

I thought it might be a good thing to talk about dealing with unsolicited criticism and opinions about your choices, your life, and your craft.

I really believe that the choices we make in this life are ours to make. I think too many people are willing to stick their noses into things they have no business being wrapped up in, and it causes more grief than it is worth. Everyone feels their opinion is valid, important, and needed. This is not always the case.

People should ask themselves these four questions before the open their mouths/type away on their keyboards:

- is it true?

- is it kind?

- is it needed?

- is it something I need to say?

Opinions or criticism should have some grain of truth to them. They should be constructive (aka kind). They should be necessary - and actually necessary, not just because you feel ‘it’s the right thing to say’, and it should be something that you feel you are required to impart to the party receiving it.

How do you know if it fulfills these simple requirements?

Firstly, and always, you need to look at where the criticism/opinion is coming from. Is it someone you trust, or whose opinion you value? Is it some random stranger? Why do you think they are saying what they are saying? Have you decided to become a drug mule or join a crime family, or did you just get your hair cut short or paint your bedroom? Most times, when these things are coming from trusted people, like family members, they are coming from a place of love. Most times. Because they are family, there is a certain expectation that their opinion carries more weight. When your old Christian aunt is telling you that you are going to hell because if your beliefs, it could be coming from a place of love. It could also be coming from a place of condescension. Maybe auntie thinks your beliefs are stupid, or silly, of that you aren’t capable of making your own decisions? The key is learning to interpret the tone of their concern, and act accordingly.

My old Catholic grandmother, gentle soul that she is, told me at 14 that I was going to hell because I would not get confirmed. It was so matter of fact, with not a lick of condescension. She merely said she would pray for me, hugged me, and we both moved on with our lives. It came from a place of love. Previous drama came from a place of condescension and foolishness, and it was rebuked.

Secondly, use your own critical thinking skills and judgement to determine if the criticism/opinion holds any merit. Sometimes people around us try to present us with situations that we may be otherwise blind to. Maybe you’re culturally appropriating something and it’s offensive to the people around you and to that group. Maybe something you present online or in person is actually super racist. Maybe your practice includes some manner of hurtful or harmful practice, and people are concerned for your wellbeing. Maybe you’re mentally ill, and off your meds, and people are concerned for you. We can’t always see things that are right in front of us, and sometimes it takes an outside observer to clue us into what we may be missing. There are valid points in being criticized - we often learn from it in a beneficial way if it is constructive and seeks to better you as a person. Hell, a large portion of my schooling was learning to take constructive criticism, which is super important as an artist who works commercially. Not everyone is going to like what you present, or agree with your own opinions.

Thirdly, you have to realize that you have every right to disagree or rebuke the criticism/opinion. If someone is disagreeing with how you are practicing, you have every right to tell them to go pound sand. Depending on the source, you should be able to decide how you want to act. It also depends on how forceful or backward the opinion is - if the person is family but is holding a bigoted and hurtful opinion, you have every right to disagree with what they are saying, and explain to them how they are incorrect. Opinions are not factual - they are not immovable, or static. They are moveable and should be ever evolving. If they then refuse to alter their opinion, and choose to continue to hold a hurtful viewpoint - for example, they’re racist, homophobic, bigoted, sizeist, etc - you can make the choice to be willing to accept that as a part of who they choose to be, or move on in life without them.

Now, I have a pretty strict policy on just cutting people out of my life. Part of that reason being I spent a large portion of my life being a doormat and letting people treat me poorly. I decided a long time ago that life was better spent with those who can respect me and love me rather than out of obligation. Life is too short for bullshit. I know I am a good person who deserves to be treated with the dignity and respect I seek to treat others with. I will not lower my standards to expect any less. Second chances are given, but if someone wounds me badly enough, no amount of 'I’m sorry’ is gonna cut it. I can always forgive, but I have the memory of an elephant and I will never forget. (Short version: I know I’m a good person, and if you treat me like crap I will cut you.)

How you choose to proceed is your choice. Always know that as an adult, you have the choice to have a relationship of your choosing with family or friends. Some families suck, some people have had abusive upbringings or have been kicked out by parents, and it’s not feasible to maintain a relationship. There is no obligation - no one owes anyone anything. You owe your parents nothing - the gratitude for bringing you into the world and raising you is fine, but that was a choice they made in having you. Realizing that is liberating, and can also set you up to address issues and problems that could be hurting your relationship with family. It can help to form real and lasting bonds built on mutual respect and equal footing. The same goes with friends - they are people you choose to surround yourself with. How and what relationship you choose to have with them is just that - your choice. The quote 'the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb’ comes to mind - we often build secondary families outside of our blood relations who we often have stronger bonds with because we can choose those people based on their merits and that they closely align with our own sensibilities. I have relatives that are crazy conservative, pro-life nut jobs, I have an aunt who physically and emotionally abused me as a child. I actively make the choice to disavow those people because we have no common ground to stand on - we are so vastly different there is no way to reconcile it. We are blood, but we are not family, if you get what I’m saying.

I should also point out that not every opinion should be aired. Sometimes, there are things you just need to keep to yourself. Yeah, okay, Susie’s hair does look like it was cut with a weed whacker, but telling her that will only hurt her and serves no purpose other than to be judgemental - maybe Susie likes her hair like that. Assuming you know better than Susie makes you a dick, because Susie is her own person and can do whatever she goddamn pleases with her hair. Maybe Joe’s altar looks tacky and cheap - still not your place to comment, because that’s Joe’s space and has nothing to do with you. Unless it involves the serious well being of someone or involves you directly, it may serve better to keep your opinions to yourself.

In the case of this criticism coming from an outside, anonymous source - I normally evaluate it, but often ignore it. It is hard to make personal judgements on someone without knowing who they are. If the person is actually making a really good point, even if it contrary to how I feel, I will take it under consideration and use my critical thinking to evaluate its usefulness. I try to approach all of my problems in a logical, matter-of-fact way. I often try and put myself in someone else’s shoes - like if I was an outside observer in the situation, how would I react? If you remove the emotion from the situation, and look at the words said and the intention behind them, you can get a fairly clear sense of what you should do.

I’m not advocating cut and run - not even remotely. I am advocating personal choice, and telling you that if you are an adult, it is okay to make that choice if it is better for your wellbeing overall. Don’t keep people around out of obligation - it serves neither of you any purpose, and just builds resentment. It breeds guilt and doubt. Cut the ties, move on, and maybe someday you can get to a point of reconciliation and trust again - people grow and change as life and circumstances change.

When you are expressing your own opinions, remember those four points - is it true, kind, needed, and are you the vehicle to impart it? It makes conversations and discussions a lot more functional, that’s for sure. Anything that can make socially awkward people communicate effectively deserves a high five or self five.

#ash and bone #ashandbone.ca #witchcraft #traditional witchcraft #heathenry #the crooked path

4 notes · View notes

transhumanitynet · 6 years

Text

Social Futurist revolution & toolkit

1.0 Social Futurist Revolution

We have recently seen increased interest in the issues of workplace automation, technological unemployment, and Basic Income Guarantee (AKA Universal Basic Income). Some observers have been perplexed by visceral and sharply divided public opinion, with people viewing these phenomena as inherently positive or negative.

We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.

– R. Buckminster Fuller

My own view is that when people see technological unemployment as intrinsically good or bad, the side they fall on probably depends on whether they’re focused on the possible future, or the problematic present. Most jobs are only valuable insofar as they earn money to live, but if our needs could be provided without the jobs then it would be a good thing to have the option of not working for money. Thus, in an ideal world technological unemployment would be a good thing. The problem arises when such unemployment takes place in a Capitalist context; i.e. in a world like ours, where if you don’t have a job you may well be unable to afford healthcare, you might lose your home, even starve.

We live in an interesting time, in which our society has not yet finished exploring the consequences of Capitalism on a trajectory spanning hundreds of years, but at the same time is heavily pregnant with a new civilizational paradigm. We don’t know exactly what the new paradigm will be, but we can be fairly sure that its dawn will be heralded by a cascade of disruptive technologies rendering 19th Century ideas about trade and governance entirely obsolete. That has the potential to be a very good or bad thing, but in the meantime there is a pressing issue we must contend with.

1.1 Capitalism is a machine with no off-switch

Well, capitalism is a big problem, because with capitalism you’re just going to keep buying and selling things until there’s nothing else to buy and sell, which means gobbling up the planet.

– Alice Walker

Capitalism might be thought of as a machine, or a process. In my opinion it is a machine – an engine of sorts – which has yielded great value for society. It has made a high-technology future possible. Unfortunately, the engine’s operations have also yielded some unfortunate side-effects. The sensible move at this point would be to optimise the process; to maximise the engine’s efficiency, and minimise its negative societal effects (not to mention ensuring that the role of the engine is not confused with that of the flight crew). Unfortunately, however, it would appear that if Capitalism is a machine, it is a machine with no off-switch or pause button. It is a runaway process.

In other words, Capitalism has no mechanism for reversing itself when its effects become a problem. For example, now that automation is making it possible for people to use their time and energy for something other than meaningless labour – indeed it is taking away jobs whether people want them or not – Capitalism cannot suddenly make ‘opting out’ a viable course of action. People who opt out of Capitalism cease to be able to support themselves within modern society.

In this way, it would appear that the old system has no capacity for gracefully giving way to a new way of doing things where people want that. The old system would strangle the new in its cradle, given the chance. Consequently, anyone who wishes to employ new technologies in the creation of a progressive society must be ready to force the old system to relinquish its grip on their lives.

1.2 The Social Futurist alternative

Usually the first problems you solve with the new paradigm are the ones that were unsolvable with the old paradigm.

– Joel A. Barker

As I’ve mentioned above, there is a broad space of post-Capitalist alternatives potentially enabled by new technologies. I am an advocate for a single category within that broad space, which I call Social Futurism. Right now, Social Futurism simply refers to the intelligent and compassionate application of new technologies to individual and societal improvement, with an emphasis upon voluntarism and personal freedom. At this stage, therefore, Social Futurism could be considered a synonym for Techno-Progressivism, although no-one knows if that will continue to be true as these schools of thought evolve.

We believe in positive social change through technology, and so are firmly on the side of the emerging new paradigm. My own view is that there will always be a place for responsible trade in emergent commodities, and that healthy private competition drives innovation, but so far Social Futurism leaves such questions open. Capitalism as it currently exists, however, will soon be faced with challenges unprecedented in its history. If Capitalism is incapable of graceful reform to adopt a place within the new paradigm, as I strongly suspect, then Social Futurists and other post-Capitalists will be forced to take a revolutionary stand. To forcibly unplug a machine loose in our lives, which never had an off-switch.

1.3 Revolution means never being alone

You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.

– R. Buckminster Fuller

But what does it mean to speak of “revolution” and “force”? Of course we can easily conjure images of violent political revolutions, and there is no denying that public rebellion is back in vogue. I personally believe that violent revolution is not something to be desired or fetishised, both because it seldom ends well or as predicted, and also because the deepest revolutions are inclusive and take time to play out. Here I am referring not to minor political revolutions so much as major paradigm shifts like the Industrial Revolution. Now, we are facing a techno-cultural shift on that scale (if not much larger), but at the same time it is likely to spark various social, economic, and political conflicts of the sort associated with violent revolution. We must ask ourselves how best to proceed, with the probability of such events looming large on the horizon.

At least two answers to that question might be suggested by the Zero State (ZS) community. The ZS idea is to create a virtual, distributed State which adheres to a set of ethical principles including limits of governmental jurisdiction. The first answer is that Social Futurists’ engagement in violent situations should be governed by principles, such as an imperative to do so only in self-defence. The second answer is to focus on building new communities, new infrastructure, and new paradigms rather than attempting to fix broken systems. In short, we need to build principled networks and use them to apply the latest innovations to our highest ideals, to the benefit of as many people as possible.

If we can do that, then I believe we will indeed be seeing a revolution unfold. New social and economic models will evolve and emerge from within the old, which will compete with older systems to provide high quality of life. Where people are not offered freedom of choice between these alternatives, and where the remnants of the older society seek to destroy its offspring, we must stand ready to fight for our freedoms. If we are hardworking and organised, then we will have the chance to contribute to the shape of the future. If we are lucky, then that future will unfold peacefully for all.

2.0 Social Futurist Toolkit

I have laid out an extremely general critique of Capitalism’s place within our society, and the barest outline of the alternative known as Social Futurism. Section 1’s point is that Capitalism does certain things very well but it cannot be paused or adjusted when its effects become problematic, that rapid technological change appears to be on the verge of making certain alternatives viable, and that unfortunately we may be forced to fight for our right to personally choose those alternatives.

Section 1 did not address policy details of any sort. It would be unfortunate if people thought that meant Social Futurism has no specific ideas at its disposal, so section 2 outlines a kind of “policy toolkit”. The following policy categories are not compulsory features of any Social Futurist movement or group, but are more like basic building blocks from which specific policy configurations could be adapted to local conditions. Similarly, the toolkit as it currently stands is in no way exhaustive.

It is my intent that this toolkit should form a kind of bridge between the broadest, most general level of political discussion on the one hand, and the development of specific policies for local groups on the other. The six basic policy categories are only very briefly discussed below, but will each soon be analysed fully by the Social Future Institute.

Finally, none of the ideas presented in this article are new (section 2.6 being my only novel contribution), but this mix is seldom presented in a single ‘chunk‘ that can be easily memorised and communicated. It is my hope that in time the label “Social Futurism” may act as the natural intersection of these disparate-but-compatible ideas, enabling people to refer to an array of possible solutions to major problems in two words rather than two thousand.

2.1 Evidence, Balance, & Transition

All of the policies in this toolkit should be approached from a pragmatic and flexible (rather than ideologically constrained) point of view. When trying to be pragmatic and flexible, our main concern is with policies that actually solve problems, so the use of empirical evidence is central to Social Futurism. Policy development and review should emphasise the setting of quantifiable goals and application of empirical evidence wherever that is an option, to encourage policy that evolves to better meet our goals over time.

In this vein, we should seek to find optimal balances between extreme ideological positions, to the extent that any given choice may be viewed as a continuum rather than a binary choice. An extremely important example is the question of transition, which is to say the process of development from our current PEST (political, economic, social, technological) situation to a more efficient and just society. Often political questions are depicted as a false dichotomy, or choice between things as they are and radical utopias entirely disconnected from current reality. What is both preferable and more tractable is an intelligent balance of the past and future, in the form of a pragmatic transition phase.

For example, sections 2.2-2.4 below propose a series of economic adjustments to society. From the perspective of someone invested in the status quo, they are extremely radical suggestions. From the perspective of a radical utopian, they are half-measures at best. From a Social Futurist perspective, they are required to maximise the likelihood of a better society actually coming into existence, while attempting to minimise the risk of severe societal destabilisation caused by rapid and untested change. My own vision of a societal transition phase follows an observation from Ray Kurzweil, in which change often takes longer than anticipated, but also ends up being much deeper than anticipated, meaning that focus on a transition phase may allow us to work toward truly radical transformative change in the longer term.

In short, the effectiveness of our methods should be tested by looking at evidence, we should balance our policies in a flexible and pragmatic manner, and we should seek a staged transition toward a better future rather than risk critically destabilizing society.

2.2 Universal Basic Income & LVAT

A minimal, “safety net” style Universal Basic Income should be established. This is as opposed to putting undue strain on the economy by introducing a basic income larger than is required to satisfy essential living requirements. Where possible, the UBI should be paid for by a combination of dismantling welfare bureaucracies, and Land Value & Automation Taxes (LVAT).

LVAT is the extension of traditional Land Value Tax to include a small tax on every unit of workplace automation equivalent to a single human being replaced. This extension of LVT is intended to harness the economic momentum of workplace automation, which is expected to be the principal cause of technological unemployment in coming decades. The tax should be considerably less than the cost of hiring a human, thus causing no disincentive to automation (some would argue that any tax would disincentivize automation, but our goal is not to encourage automation, and as long as automation is cheaper than human labour it will win out). The LVAT would take the place of increasing numbers of arbitrary taxes on goods and services which are currently being added and increased to shore up Western economies.

Social Futurism is compatible with private property ownership and does not advocate property confiscation. Wealth redistribution is only advocated to the degree that it can be achieved through LVAT & UBI as described above. The extent to which people should be able to choose if, how, and to whom they pay tax is addressed in section 2.6. It is also worth noting here that where a functional equivalent of UBI exists (e.g. citizen shares in Distributed Autonomous Cooperatives) which is proven more effective, then Social Futurists should favour the more effective solution as per point 2.1.

2.3 Abolition of Fractional Reserve Banking

Fractional Reserve Banking is the process by which banks are required to hold only a fraction of their customers’ deposits in reserve, allowing the money supply to grow to a multiple of the base amount held in reserve. Through this practice, central banks may charge interest on the money they create (thereby creating a debt which can never be repaid, across society as a whole) and expose the entire economy to risk when they cannot meet high demand for withdrawals. Fractional Reserve Banking fosters potentially critical risk to the entirety of society for the benefit of only a tiny proportion of citizens, and therefore should be abolished. The alternative to Fractional Reserve Banking is Full Reserve or 100% Reserve Banking, in which all banks must hold the full amount of deposits in reserve at all times.

Full Reserve Banking is much more conservative than Fractional Reserve Banking, and would signal an end to “easy credit”. In turn, it would afford enough stability to see our society through a sustainable transition phase, until technological post-scarcity makes reliance on traditional banking systems and the Capitalist principle of surplus value itself unnecessary.

2.4 Responsible Capitalism, Post-Scarcity, & Emergent Commodity Markets

Social Futurist policy must favour the encouragement of responsible trade and strong regulation of reckless behaviour, with an eye to making Capitalism an engine of society rather than its blind master. To this end, it should be Social Futurist policy that all companies that wish to operate within any given community must be registered with the appropriate regulation bodies employed by that community. Non-regulation and self-regulation by industries which are not accountable to the communities they affect is unacceptable. (For the purposes of this brief statement I have conflated Capitalism and markets, despite the fact that trade existed millennia before the organization of society around profit based on Capital investment. These issues will be treated separately and extensively, later).

Where possible, Social Futurists should advocate the transition to non-monetary peer-to-peer resource management under post-scarcity conditions. In other words, we should seek to avoid the creation or maintenance of artificial scarcity in essential resources. A continuing place for trade even under post-scarcity conditions is acknowledged and encouraged where it reduces artificial scarcity, promotes technical innovation, and serves the needs and directives of the community. Emergent commodities (e.g. natural artificial scarcities such as unique artworks) will need a framework for responsible trade even under optimal post-scarcity conditions, so it behooves us to develop such frameworks now, in the context of contemporary Capitalism.

2.5 Human autonomy, privacy, & enhancement

Social Futurism incorporates the transhumanist idea that the human condition can and should be improved through the intelligent and compassionate application of technology. We also strongly emphasise voluntarism, and in combination these things necessitate the championing of people’s rights over their own bodies and information. It should be Social Futurist policy to oppose any development by which people would lose individual sovereignty or involuntarily cede ownership of their personal information. Social Futurists must also defend the individual’s right to modify themselves by technological means, provided that the individual is a mentally competent consenting adult and the modification would not pose significant risk of harm to others.

2.6 Establishment of VDP (Virtual, Distributed, Parallel) States

The principle of subsidiarity holds that organizational responsibility should be devolved to the lowest or most local level capable of dealing with the situation. In other words, power should be decentralized, insofar as that doesn’t diminish our ability to face challenges as a society.

For example, local governance issues should be handled by local rather than national-level government where possible. Social Futurism takes subsidiarity to its logical conclusion, by insisting that people should have the right to govern their own affairs as they see fit, as long as by doing so they are not harming the wider community. On the other side of the coin, broader (e.g. national and transnational) levels of governance would be responsible for issues that local organizations and individuals could not competently face alone.

Where global governance is needed, the model should be one of cooperating global agencies focused on a specific area of expertise (e.g. the World Health Organization), rather than a single government acting in a centralised manner to handle all types of issue. In this way, decentralization of power applies even when an issue cannot be resolved on the local level.

In order to encourage the development of such a system, we advocate the establishment of communities with powers of self-governance known as VDP States, where VDP stands for “Virtual, Distributed, Parallel”. ‘Virtual’ refers to online community, orthogonal to traditional geographic territories. ‘Distributed’ refers to geographic States, but ones where different parts of the community exist in different locations, as a network of enclaves. ‘Parallel’ refers to communities that exist on the established territory of a traditional State, acting as a kind of organizational counterpoint to that State’s governing bodies. Two or three of these characteristics may be found in a single VDP State, but it is expected that most such communities would emphasise one characteristic over the others. Alternatively, a VDP State may emphasise different characteristics at different stages in its development.

Given Social Futurist emphasis on voluntarism, VDP State citizenship must be entirely voluntary. Indeed, the entire point of the VDP State is to broaden the range of governance models which people may voluntarily choose to engage with, where they are currently told that they simply have to accept a single model of governance.

As this is clearly a new and experimental approach to governance, it is to be expected that many ideas associated with it are still to be properly developed and tested. Some of these ideas may not meet our own standards of empirical review. However, to briefly anticipate some common objections it is worth noting several points. Firstly, decentralization does not imply an absence of social organization. It simply means that people can exercise more choice in how they engage with society. Secondly, yes it is true that all three of the VDP characteristics have limitations as well as strengths (e.g. difficulty in defending isolated enclaves), but that is why any given VDP State would find the mix of features that suits its purpose and context best. Thirdly, as mentioned earlier in this article, different approaches may be mixed and balanced as necessary, such as a single-location VDPS being used as a template for the later creation of a distributed network of communities. Finally, the VDPS idea is not intended to stand alone but to complement any initiatives which have the potential to maximise its value (Open Source Ecology, for example).

Addendum: A note on Marxism

Below I give an example of the point made in section 1 (about balance and transition), which draws upon a Marxist viewpoint because Social Futurist concerns tend to be shared by Marxists, but the logic would equally apply to movements whose long-term ideals and methods are more like our own, such as The Zeitgeist Movement. I have put this note to one side because I do not want to give an incorrect first impression that Social Futurism is Marxist in nature. It is simply intended to address societal problems which have already been comprehensively analysed by Marxists, so it is worth noting the relevance of their point of view to our own.

Marx argued that the root problem with Capitalism is surplus value. This means that Capitalists (i.e. investors) pay workers only a proportion of the value of what is produced by their work, and the remaining (“surplus”) value is taken as profit by the Capital owning class, along with rent and interest on debts. Marxists assert that workers should collectively own the means of production (i.e. factories, machines, resources, all Capital), thereby ending surplus value and phenomena such as problematic banking practices along with it. From this perspective it might be reasonably suggested that “treating the symptoms” rather than the core disorder would be fruitless (or worse, dangerous), and that citizen benefits of any sort should be paid for by distributing all profit from collectively owned means of production equally.

Without wishing to get into a discussion of whether ideal Marxism is possible or doomed to give rise to historical Communist authoritarianism, I would say that even a benign Marxist revolution would entirely destabilize society if it occurred too quickly. Social Futurism does not deny the Marxist analysis of the problem, but seeks a staged transition to a post-Capitalist society which does not attempt to undermine the entire basis of our current society in a single move. Although an optimal, long-term Social Futurist outcome may not be desirable to some Marxists (and certainly not to historical Stalinists or Maoists), it would definitely involve the eventual transition to democratic, decentralised post-scarcity, and removal of Capitalist surplus value as the central organizational principle of our civilization.

Social Futurist revolution & toolkit was originally published on transhumanity.net

1 note · View note

supremekalmllc · 4 years

Photo

New Post has been published on https://supremekalm.com/kamala-harris-will-help-with-cannabis-reform-and-thatsgood-enough-for-me/

Kamala Harris Will Help With Cannabis Reform (and That’s Good Enough For Me)

Congratulations to Senator Kamala Harris, Joe Bidenâs V.P. pick. Harris will become the first Black woman and the first person of Indian descent to be nominated for national office by a major party. Itâs a huge accomplishment. It could also impact the race significantly in the coming weeks and months.

What would a Vice President Harris mean for cannabis law and policy? Assuming Biden and Harris win this fall, itâs hard to say. Harris has evolved considerably on cannabis policy, especially in the past few years. She has also emerged as a leading voice on companion issues of racial justice and inequality, even since walking away from her unsuccessful presidential campaign earlier this year.

Looking back, Harris wasnât always a shining light on criminal justice and cannabis issues. Her resume includes a regrettable tenure as California Attorney General with respect to cannabis enforcement, overseeing the jailing of more than 1,500 people for marijuana crimes, and fighting to keep (and even enhance) the retrograde system of cash bail. These unforced errors famously surfaced in the Democratic Presidential debates and may emerge again with Harris on the ticket.

Eventually, as a U.S. Senator, Harris followed her party away from the War on Drugsâ albeit quietly and without much enthusiasm. Back in January of 2018, I went after Harris pretty hard on this blog. In that piece, I criticized her position on cannabis as âmostly just talkâ, explaining:

There are several reasons why Ms. Harris has been catching significant flak for her half measures on cannabis, as compared to other officials: 1) she hails from California, the first state with a medical cannabis program and the worldâs largest cannabis economy; 2) she comes from the executive side, having served as California Attorney General; 3) she is a celebrity national politician, who is often floated as a 2020 presidential candidate; and 4) she is constantly talking about the failed War on Drugs. In fact, she talks about it pretty much every single day.

But itâs all talk. As California Attorney General, Ms. Harris did little to advance her stateâs interest as to cannabis. In 2014, when she was asked for her opinion on legalizing adult-use cannabis, her response was dismissive laughter. As a U.S. Senator, she has failed to sponsor or even co-sign any bill to re- or deschedule marijuana (and there are some good ones). Aside from lots of talking, Harrisâ one big move has been to put together a petition to decriminalize marijuana nationwide (but not to revise the CSA). My eight-year-old niece could do that.

If I had given Harris a letter grade at that time, it might have been a âD.â Fortunately, things have changed quite a bit over the past two-and-a-half years. Last summer, we ran a series of posts taking a close look at each of the 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates. At that point, Harris had begun advocating for legalizing cannabis, as well as for expunging marijuana offenses from criminal records. We gave Harris a âBâ, noting her improvement but wondering how much priority Harris would give to cannabis reform if elected into office. We also noted how late to the game Harris was, as compared to vanguard cannabis candidates like Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker, to name a few (see the overall roundup here).

All of that said, itâs not how you start, but how you finish. Harris has really picked up the charge on cannabis issues lately, including in her role as Senate sponsor of the MORE Act. As drafted, the MORE Act removes marijuana from the federal Controlled Substances Act, provides expungement for certain cannabis offensesâ and has a 3% chance of actually becoming law someday.

Still, if Harris keeps at it her advocacy will be a real boon, especially given Bidenâs perplexing unwillingness to support cannabis legalization (we gave Biden a âDâ), and especially given the Democratsâ failure at large to add marijuana legalization to the party platform once again this year. (Pretty disappointing, especially considering where the party was at in the run-up to the 2016 convention).

So we should credit Harris for coming around on cannabis, especially where the center of her party is still a half-step behind. It is true that the Biden-Harris ticket is not the best that legalization advocates could have hoped for. But, like the U.S. at large, the Democratic party continues to float toward inevitably ending prohibition. Harris is going to help with thatâ even if it doesnât happen as quickly as we had once hoped.

The post Kamala Harris Will Help With Cannabis Reform (and Thatâs Good Enough For Me) appeared first on Harris Bricken.

0 notes

janepwilliams87 · 4 years

Text

Biden Proposes Federal Aid To Help States Expunge Marijuana Records

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said on Tuesday that criminal records for marijuana convictions represent a major systemic barrier to economic opportunity that’s had a disproportionate impact on communities of color.

During a speech on racial equity and the economy, the former vice president said that “getting caught for smoking marijuana when you’re young surely shouldn’t deny you, the rest your life, being able to have a good paying job or a career or a loan or an ability to rent an apartment.”

“Right now, that criminal record is the weight that holds back too many people of color, and many whites as well,” he said, adding that the process of getting those records sealed or expunged can be “complicated and costly in the states where the records are kept.”

Biden, who continues to oppose legalizing cannabis, said that more states should “recognize the significant costs to their economy when people with certain non-violent criminal records can’t fully contribute to their full talents and capacity.” However, “even when the states want to give that person a second chance and seal or expunge a certain non-violent criminal record, the record keeping-systems are so outdated, they don’t know how to do it.”

youtube

To help resolve that, Biden said that if he’s elected, he would make it so states that are interested in implementing an automated expungement process could receive federal assistance.

“Under my plan, if a state decides it wants to implement an automated system for the sealing and expunging of certain nonviolent criminal records, if a state chooses to do that, the federal government will help put together the process and allow them the money to be able to know how to organize to do that.”

“That’s what racial equity in our economy looks like,” he said.

Missing from the speech, however, was an acknowledgement that during his time in the Senate, Biden helped craft some of the punitive anti-drug laws that sent people—particularly black and brown people—to prison and gave them a criminal record in the first place. And while the campaign likely wants to distance the candidate from those actions, President Trump’s reelection team has seized on it and attacked Biden as the “architect” of the war on drugs.

Of course, Biden has evolved on criminal justice and drug policy in the decades since, but he’s still disappointed cannabis reform advocates by maintaining an opposition to adult-use legalization—a policy change supported by a supermajority of Democrats.

Instead, he’s backed decriminalizing possession, modest federal rescheduling, medical cannabis legalization, expungements and letting states set their own marijuana policies.

The new racial equity plan Biden rolled out on Tuesday says he “will advance a pathway for redemption and re-entry—and make real the possibility of second chances for all Americans—by helping states modernize their criminal justice data infrastructure and adopt automated record sealing for selected categories of non-violent offenses, to modernize their criminal justice data infrastructure.”

“This data infrastructure will facilitate sealing of records in a manner that is precise, complete and efficient—so those records are not used to deny people jobs, housing, voting rights, school loans and other opportunities to rebuild their lives,” the plan states. “The grants Biden is proposing will support state efforts to research, plan for, and ultimately implement the criminal record data infrastructure improvements that will make automated record relief possible. Beyond that, the infrastructure improvements will yield a general improvement in the operation and efficiency of state records.”

We can't build this nation back better without tackling the systemic racism and disparities that have plagued our country for far too long. That's why today, I'm releasing my new plan to advance racial economic equity across the American economy. https://t.co/MQW8ItM0J8

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) July 28, 2020

Some held out hope that a criminal justice task force organized by Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would have recommended that the former vice president adopt a pro-legalization position, but that did not materialize.

And what’s more, there’s new suspicion among advocates that delegates on the Democratic National Committee’s platform committee felt pressure from the Biden campaign to vote against an amendment that would have made legalization a 2020 party plank.

While that hasn’t been substantiated, the panel rejected the marijuana proposal in a 50-106 vote on Monday, with even longtime advocates like Congressional Cannabis Caucus cochair Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) voting against it.

House To Vote On Protecting All State Marijuana Programs From Federal Interference This Week

The post Biden Proposes Federal Aid To Help States Expunge Marijuana Records appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

from Updates By Jane https://www.marijuanamoment.net/biden-proposes-federal-aid-to-help-states-expunge-marijuana-records/

0 notes

thechasefiles · 4 years

Text

The Chase Files Daily Newscap 5/2/2020

Good Morning #realdreamchasers ! Here is your daily news cap for Wednesday February 5th, 2020. There is a lot to read and digest so take your time. Remember you can read full articles via Barbados Government Information Service (BGIS), Barbados Today (BT), or by purchasing a MidweekNation Newspaper (MWN).

ECONOMIST: POSTAL FEE HIKE A BIG BLOW TO SMALL BUSINESS – Government’s decision to raise processing fees for packages coming through the postal service by 660 per cent, should be cause for concern in the small business community, a respected economist has warned. University of the West Indies lecturer in banking and finance Jeremy Stephen contends that the hike in user fees from $1.50 to $10 was discriminatory against small businesses which are most likely to use the postal office. The economist further noted that the poor are also likely to be affected, as they often use the post office to have low-cost items shipped to them. Stephen told Barbados TODAY: “I understand the reason for the fee and that Government wants to go on a user fee basis, but I believe it will impact the cost of doing business significantly on the island. “This is especially going to be the case for small businesses, not necessarily the larger ones. “It really can be reviewed as a regressive tax on small businesses because of lower volumes that they bring through the post office per week. “So that would be an increase in cost to customers, contributing to the already abysmal inflation we are facing in a slow economy.” Stephen called on Government to clarify whether the new fee would be for each item processed. The economist further warned: “For small businesses and poor people this can result in a contraction of consumption. “Maybe that is part of the general plan, but it shouldn’t be if you are promoting business growth. “Maybe it is isn’t intended, but it is discriminatory towards larger businesses who would not use the post office to import the inputs for their businesses.” The Postal Service announced that effective January 20, the cost of the Advice Fee for processing all parcels and letter packets at the post office would be increased. This prompted a response from consumer advocate Malcolm Gibbs-Taitt, who argued that the hike was onerous, adding that “poor people just cannot afford it”. But in defending the Government’s decision, Minister in the Ministry of Finance Ryan Straughn argued: “The reality is that [we need] to come to some reasoning with respect to the fact that the fees being charged by some agencies in Government need to reflect the cost of doing those services.” He declared that the changes in fees were necessary to allow Government to “better deliver the service that the people want”. He suggested that if those fees were not changed over time then it would most likely come in the form of more taxes. Barbados TODAY contacted Minister responsible for Small Business Dwight Sutherland who promised to comment on the issue after further dialogue with Cabinet colleagues. Stephen pointed out that the move should come as no surprise, suggesting it was par for the course in the current IMF-sanctioned budget austerity, during which state-owned services must pay their own way. He added: “State-owned enterprises such as the post office were a drag on public financing and everybody agreed that it was time to go to the IMF. “So for the last two years, the Government has been pushing fees, such as in the case of the hospital, which they claim is self-sustaining at this point. “The same goes for the airport and there are other examples. “One could argue that they could have sent home persons but that may have had a lot more repercussions in the short run.” (BT)

NO BAN – Minister of Health Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Bostic is defending Government’s decision not to ban travel from China, which is currently severely impacted by the deadly Coronavirus, even though six CARICOM countries have taken the decision to do just that. Speaking at a press briefing to update the public on recent CARICOM discussions to combat the global pandemic, Bostic made it clear that Barbados was keeping faith with its prevention protocols, which have been approved by the World Health Organisation (WHO). He explained that Barbados has covered its bases as it relates to additional medical personnel at the ports of entry, installation of temperature scanners and quarantine facilities at an undisclosed location. He noted that given the rigorous screening of passengers before getting to Barbados as well as the fact that there are no direct flights between Barbados and China, the risk to the country remains low and this could be further reduced when prevention protocols kick in. “We have six Caribbean territories placing a ban on passengers coming out of China. There were some discussions there and it was agreed that this was more than a health decision as there are other things involved. We in Barbados made the decision based on evidence, based on science, based on history and everything we have seen happening over last several weeks, that we were not going to go this route. We will follow the WHO instructions not to inhibit trade or travel,” Bostic said. “There has been about a dozen international incidents of this nature over the last 15 years or so and Barbados has never closed its borders. We have always relied on our people, the competence and collaborative skills of the people that we have at our ports of entry to keep the country safe and we are still confident with this,” he added. In fact, the Minister revealed that this policy was put to the test this weekend, as Barbados gave safe harbor to the AIDA Cruise Ship, which was turned away by St Lucia and other OECS countries on Saturday due to some guest presenting with respiratory illness. “When the cruise ship AIDA was here, some countries in the Caribbean denied entry but we did not. We based our decision on procedures and protocols and when port health went on the vessel which was carrying about 4,000 people, there were 40 people that were ill onboard including persons with gastroenteritis and other illness not related to the coronavirus. “The numbers were way below the required number for quarantining a vessel. So, we took the decision to allow the vessel to dock and allow passengers to disembark but those ill passengers had to remain onboard,” said Bostic, while acknowledging that a major outbreak of the illness in Barbados could be beyond the capabilities of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. “When we did our analysis of the situation, we determined that the airport was the most vulnerable area because the international regulations governing cruise ships coming into ports of entry are very strong and we have been doing this for a very long time. These cruise ships have their own hospitals on board, their own medical staff, their own quarantine station and we get information on the cruise ship up to four hours before they arrive. Port health officials then go onboard and scrutinize the medical data so that we can make certain determinations,” the Minister explained. (BT)

GOVT 'ON BALL' WHILE BAJANS STOCK UP – Health officials say they are “on the ball” regarding preparations for the coronavirus should it land here, but Barbadians appear not to be taking any chances and are flocking to stores buying up masks and hand sanitisers. Pharmacist-in-charge at Massy Pharmacy Warrens, Bernard Bailey, said they had sold more than 700 masks over the past three weeks. He said these, along with hand sanitiser, were in great demand. “It’s a good thing because people are being proactive; you don’t want the virus to arrive and you’re scrambling,” he said. A representative of Pharmacy Sales Caribbean Inc., based in Friendship Terrace, St Michael, said Barbadians had been demanding the masks in such great quantity they had to order more, adding another shipment was in the Bridgetown Port waiting to be cleared. Another pharmacist also reported last night that Collins Pharmacy was also out of masks. During a media conference yesterday, Minister of Health Jeffrey Bostic gave an update on Barbados’ position concerning the virus following an emergency CARICOM ministers of health meeting on Monday. (MWN)

TAKE PRECAUTIONS AGAINST LANDFILL FIRE – Persons with respiratory illnesses living in the vicinity of the Mangrove Landfill, in St Thomas, are being advised to leave the area until conditions caused by a second fire, which broke out in the tyre section at the landfill, improve. The Ministry of Health and Wellness has advised persons with asthma and other respiratory illnesses that if they are feeling unwell, they should also seek immediate medical attention at the nearest polyclinic or their private doctor. The Sanitation Service Authority and the Barbados Fire Service are currently on site at the Mangrove landfill dealing with a fire which has re-ignited in the tyre section. (BGIS)

CRACKING DOWN ON DRUG COCKTAILS – A new legislative framework is on the way to crack down on pharmaceuticals being used to concoct hallucinogenic and psychoactive drugs. After the launch of a workshop on synthetic drugs at the Regional Police training Centre last week, Minister of Home Affairs Edmund Hinkson announced that his ministry, along with the Ministry of Health and representatives from the Barbados Drug Service and National Council on Substance Abuse (NCSA) were working in collaboration to advise Cabinet on drafting legal policies to deal with the matter. “Government will act on the advice after the consideration of those technical proposals on how else to reform and modernise legislation,” he said. “This is an issue that is evolving. the ill effect of illegal substance abuse is changing every year and it’s a question of modernising and keeping up to date.” (MWN)

BODY FOUND AT HALLS ROAD – The body of a male was discovered this afternoon at the Mencea Cox roundabout, Halls Road, St Michael. Police are currently investigating the matter. (MWN)

ACCUSED ADMITS DAMAGING CHURCH PROPERTY – Renison Isaiah Prince says he broke 19 windows and a plant pot at the historic St Mary’s Church because, “God tell me to do it”. That’s the explanation the 26-year-old Fairfield, Black Rock, St Michael resident gave to police when he was arrested over two years ago. Before committing the criminal act on October 22, 2017 Prince ventured to Lucky Horsehoe where security officer Edwin Norgrove saw him. He was removed from those premises after drinking pepper sauce from the bottle, Senior Crown Counsel Olivia Davis said in reading the facts of the case. Prince left the establishment and Norgrove, who knew him for four years from seeing him, said Prince stated that someone was calling him from the churchyard. Norgrove told him that was not the case. Five minutes later the guard said he heard glass breaking from the direction of the church and subsequently saw Prince jumping over the southern wall, covered in blood. The police were called and Prince was arrested. The following morning around 5:45 a.m., the caretaker came in with the intentions of opening the church but instead discovered the windows broken and debris on the ground along with stones. The police arrived with a handcuffed Prince soon after. Photographs were taken of the scene and Prince was questioned about how he sustained the laceration on his left forearm. “I brek out windows in the church. God tell me to do it. I mean St Mary’s Church,” he told police. Under caution he then pointed to the windows he damaged and again stated: “I brek out them. God tell me to do it . . . and the plant pot inside. I don’t want no lawyer, I is who brek out the windows. I tell you what happen, I ain’t giving no statement.” The prosecutor told Justice Randall Worrell, the cost to repair and replace the windows was estimated at BDS$51,180. The judge remanded Prince to the Psychiatric Hospital for the next three weeks to be evaluated. He is currently serving time at Dodds,. Prince, who was unrepresented, returns before the No. 2 Supreme Court for sentencing on February 28. (BT)

SWORD ATTACKER TO KNOW HIS FATE NEXT WEEK – A 49-year-old landscaper who pleaded guilty to wounding another man is expected to know his fate on February 13. In the meantime, David Anderson Roach, of Dayrells Road, Christ Church is on $3,000 bail with a warning to stay away from the complainant. Roach had pleaded guilty to committing the offence against Hussain Hinds on December 30, 2019 causing him actual bodily harm. Addressing Magistrate Douglas Frederick in the District ‘A’ Magistrates’ Court Roach said: “I raised the sword to frighten him, not to hit him. I sorry I hit him, I am very sorry.” He told the magistrate he had the weapon for his trade as a landscaper. When Roach appears in the Bridgetown Court next Thursday, the complainant is also expected to be present to address the magistrate. (BT)

JAMAICAN PLEADS GUILTY – Jamaican labourer Nigel Oraine Bailey was handed over to immigration officials today after pleading guilty to a criminal charge. Bailey, who lived at My Lord’s Hill, St Michael admitted to entering the premises of Sabenar Joseph on January 20 and behaving in a threatening manner. Magistrate Douglas Frederick convicted, reprimanded and discharged the 28-year-old on the charge after hearing the particulars of the case. (BT)

BTC NOT TAKING BLAME – OPINION may be divided but the Barbados Turf Club (BTC) is taking none of the blame for last weekend’s tragic incident at the Garrison Savannah when five-year-old chestnut gelding Ranak snapped his left front leg in the final race of the day. BTC chief executive officer Rosette Peirce told the MIDWEEK NATION yesterday there was nothing dangerous about the conditions of the track, adding that the incident was unfortunate. “People are making assumptions and accusations but I am not aware of any issue of that part of the track. Anyone is welcome to come down here and check the track. “I am issuing an open invitation for photos to be taken where the incident occurred and maybe people can have a look and tell me what it is there that would have caused the horse to break his leg,” she said. (MWN)

PM: BIG PROJECTA COMING ONE BY ONE – Government is anticipating the start of some major projects in the coming weeks. Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley said people who were calling for investments would be able to count them “one by one”. She was speaking yesterday as officials of Chefette Restaurants Ltd broke ground for the fast food chain’s new ice cream and meat processing plants and corporate offices at Lears, St Michael. (MWN)

HART IS SPECIAL ADVISER TO UN SECRETARY-GENERAL - Former Barbados Ambassador to the United States, Selwin Hart, has been appointed special adviser to United Nations secretary-general António Guterres and assistant secretary-general of the Climate Action Team. Guterres made the announcement earlier today. Climate change remains at the top of the secretary-general’s priorities and one of the core priorities of the Decade of Action to Deliver the Sustainable Development Goals. In ensuring enhanced levels of ambition on climate change within the Decade, Hart will lead the Climate Action team, focusing on Member State support, coalition-building, UN system engagement and public mobilisation necessary to implement the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and achieve a successful 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow, United Kingdom in 2020. His job is to also ensure delivery of the Secretary-General’s priorities on climate change, from enhanced Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), fossil fuel and coal phase-out, ensuring public and private finance shifts and the transitions necessary to shift the world’s energy, transportation, land and natural systems in alignment with the goals of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals. Hart is currently the Executive Director for the Caribbean region at the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB). He was previously the Ambassador to the United States and the Organisation of American States for Barbados and Director of the secretary-general’s Climate Change Support Team, leading the delivery of the 2014 Climate Summit and the secretary-general’s engagement in the process ahead of the signing of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Throughout his career, Hart has served in several climate change leadership positions, including climate adviser for the Caribbean Development Bank, chief climate change negotiator for Barbados as well as the coordinator and lead negotiator on finance for the Alliance of Small Island Developing States (AOSIS), a coalition of 43 islands and low-lying coastal states in the Caribbean, Pacific, Africa, Indian Ocean and South China Sea. He was a member of the Kyoto Protocol Adaptation Fund Board from 2009 to 2010 and was elected by the United Nations General Assembly to serve as vice-chairman of the 2nd Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (Economic and Financial) during its 60th Session. (MWN)

MOTTLEY LAUDS STAFF AT CARICOM SECRETARIAT – The staff of the CARICOM Secretariat in Guyana were lauded by the movement’s chairman, Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley, as critical frontline soldiers in the war for a better region for all its people. Speaking during a one-day visit to the headquarters complex of the regional integration movement in Georgetown on Monday, Mottley also urged them to use this year to perfect their vision for the deepening of relations among member states and their people. “Let me say how pleased I am to be here in Georgetown in this building that really represents the hopes and aspirations of our people,” Barbados’ Prime Minister said. “Earlier, I was asked to sign the [visitor’s] book, and I said then that I was very conscious that 2020 is known for perfecting the finer vision, and therefore it has not escaped me that in this year 2020 we have an obligation to so do, building on the legacy of our founding fathers… “I am conscious now more than ever that ours is a responsibility to carry the baton, to hold it as firmly as we can … and to make sure that we can use this innings to add runs to the board, but conscious that others will come after us.” Mottley, who is preparing to host CARICOM’s Inter-sessional Heads Meeting in Barbados in just over two weeks, added: “To that extent, how do we progress and thrive, amidst all the challenges and crises that we face, amidst those who believe that by 2050 we run the risk that the Caribbean could be the poorest region of the world…, or by those who recognise that the climate crisis we face has put some real existential issues before us … and has created a category of persons we never thought would exist in our lifetime — climate refugees. “Then you then add the public health crises, and to those who think I am referring to the coronavirus, I am not., I am referring to the violence in our societies that would see from Jamaica with 101 murders in January, in Trinidad 46 and in my own country three, which may seem small to you, but is most disturbing to us.“When I look at these things, plus the other public health crisis of chronic NCDs that are cutting down too many of our people in the prime of their lives, then you begin to ask: How is it that what we are doing can make a difference to change the course of the destiny of not just our countries, but of individuals, individual families, individual communities?” Barbados’ Prime Minister then told scores of CARICOM employees: “It is for that reason that I believe that our ability this year, 2020, to pause and use the metaphor of the year to perfect that finer vision where we can allow our people to dare to dream, to be determined to do at all times, to be disciplined to do, to be able to recognise that the instant gratification …. of our time cannot be the thing that guides us as we go forward and that in almost every other aspect of serious human progress it requires discipline and capacity to stay the course and to stay focused. “And it is that that requires us therefore to engage our people and not just our governments. I have come here therefore conscious of the fact that the people who come to work every day to make this reality our reality, are primarily you in the secretariat. “I, therefore, thank you for your continued commitment to a project that many had doubted was capable of surviving; a project that many, even if they don’t doubt it, are sometimes prepared to be indifferent and more consumed with the affairs of others than with our own affairs. We have a responsibility to build on that legacy.” (MWN)

HISTORIAN KAMAU BRATHWAITE DIES AT 89 – Barbadian Edward Kamau Brathwaite, the noted poet and historian has passed. He was 89 years old. Kamau, as he was familiarly known, was educated at Harrison College, the University of Cambridge Pembroke College and the University of Sussex. He was an education officer in Ghana from 1955 to 1962 before he returned to the Caribbean to teach in St Lucia and later at the University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, Jamaica. He also lectured at New York University. Some of his works include Rights of Passage (1967), Masks (1968), Islands (1969) and Barabajan Poems in 1994. Among his honours include an honorary doctorate from the University of Sussex, the Casa de las Americas Prize for Literary Criticism, the WEB Du Bois Award in 2010 and the Bussa Award. (MWN)

PM: KAMAU WAS WIZZARD WITH WORDS – The following statement was submitted by Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley on the passing of Barbadian cultural icon, Kamau Brathwaite, who passed away yesterday at age 89. Kamau Brathwaite was easily one of the titans of post-colonial literature and the Arts. His chronicling of our past through his magnificent works, shone a powerful light on the realities of our present and in turn, guided our sense of self and national identity. One of the highlights of my tenure as Minister of Culture was Barbados’ excellent presentation at CARIFESTA in Trinidad and Tobago, featuring Kamau’s seminal work "Barabajan". But his reach and influence were not limited to his beloved Barbados and the Caribbean. His tenure as an educator at institutions from Ghana to America allowed students of every ethnicity and background to experience his wizardry with words. Ultimately however, Kamau’s legacy and timeless gift to us all is his powerfully poignant body of work. From “Odale’s Choice” and “The Arrivants” to “Mother Poem” and “Born to Slow Horses”, he leaves us priceless literary treasures that will delight and shape our minds for generations to come. The numerous stellar awards for his work are testament to the global acclaim and respect earned for decades of exceptional literary craftsmanship. Kamau Brathwaite espoused the very best of the Barbadian personality and I wish him safe journey to the next realm. On behalf of the Cabinet, Government and people of Barbados, I extend heartfelt condolences to his wife Beverley, sister Joan, other relatives and friends. May he rest in peace. (MWN)

There are 331 days left in the year Shalom! Follow us on Twitter, Facebook & Instagram for your daily news. #thechasefiles #dailynewscaps #bajannewscaps #newsinanutshell

#The Chase Files #Barbados Today #Nation News Barbados #Nation News Online #Midweek Nation #Loop News Barbados #Frosteez #Mia Mottley #Politics in Barbados #Politics #Corruption #crime #Economy #Sports #Lifestyle

0 notes

inscolfornurses-blog · 5 years

Text

Facts to Know Before Studying Nursing Courses in Canada

The thought of pursuing a nursing course in Canada can be alluring. Fancy scrubs and technologically advanced hospitals is how most of us envision the future of studying a nursing course in Canada. However, there’s much more to it. To help you make the right choice, here we have some facts you must know before studying a nursing course in Canada.

1. Plethora of specializations

In the ever-evolving field of nursing, you can find a huge variety of specializations. Different nursing disciplines cater to different patient care needs, which makes the culture of ‘specialized education’ more likeable. Name a specialization and you get suitable nursing courses in Canada to enhance your skills in that niche. In a way, this is looked upon as an opportunity for Internationally Educated Nurses (IENs) to learn new techniques and explore responsibilities that are now a part of nursing.

Some common specializations that are highly preferred by nursing students in Canada are as follows:

1. Cardiovascular Nursing

2. Community Health Nursing

3. Critical Care Nursing

4. Critical Care Pediatric Nursing

5. Emergency Nursing

6. Enterostomal Therapy Nursing

7. Gastroenterology Nursing

8. Gerontological Nursing

9. Hospice Palliative Care Nursing

10. Medical-Surgical Nursing

11. Nephrology Nursing

12. Neuroscience Nursing

13. Occupational Health Nursing

14. Oncology Nursing

15. Orthopaedic Nursing

16. PeriAnesthesia Nursing

17. Perinatal Nursing

18. Perioperative Nursing

19. Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing

20. Rehabilitation Nursing

To upskill themselves from all aspects, most of the students choose postgraduate certificate programs over master programs. One important reason for making this choice is that certificate programs are of a relatively shorter duration and yet cover most of the modules included in a masters program.

Masters in nursing can be tough when in a foreign land. Students have to juggle with part time work, which is key to survival. At the same time, completing their clinical hours is also important and that leads to unwanted pressure. Hence, when thinking of studying a nursing specialization in Canada, think of postgraduate certificate programs. They are affordable, time saving and bring along the benefit of studying nursing disciplines of your choice.

2. Canada needs more nursing leaders

Gone are those days when the profession of nursing was restricted to patient care. In countries like Canada, nursing is an ever-evolving profession that identifies the importance of highly specialized team members. Considering the same, there is a huge demand of nursing leaders in Canada. The changing trends of patient care in the country are relying heavily on nursing leaders who can head departments with varying requirements.

To explore the correlation between leadership and nursing, you can study nursing programs in Toronto and build on your leadership skills with reference to nursing.

While deciding to study nursing programs in Toronto, consider studying Nursing Leadership & Management because one of its module helps you prepare for the NCLEX-RN examination, which gets you closer to being a part of the Canadian healthcare system.

Studying nursing courses in Canada makes you realize that nurses are doing much more than just basic duties. From being caregivers to patient educators, nurses truly earn the title of being a leader.

3. Nursing is one of the most trusted professions in Canada

Originating from nobility, the profession of nursing is now one of the most valued professions in Canada. According to a survey reported by Global News, “more than nine in ten Canadians admire nurses because of the factor of dealing in trust.” The fact that nurses are regarded as honest, transparent and ethical strengthens the idea of pursuing nursing courses in Canada. Undoubtedly, it takes a strong will to be a nursing student and enter a profession that continues to advocate. Nurses advocate for their patients, workplaces, communities, and themselves. Without nurses, some patients would not be able to advocate for themselves. It is through advocacy that nurses continue to gain the trust and respect of their patients and families.

4. Alarming shortage of nurses

As warned by Canadian Nurses Association, Canada needs more than 60,000 nurses by 2022. One strategy for overcoming shortage of nurses is to increase Canada’s nursing population through immigration. The country is relying on Internationally Educated Nurses (IENs), to fill the gap, which means now is the right time to study nursing courses in Canada.

5. “Think out of the hospital”

Not all nurses work in hospitals. Young nursing graduates nowadays are experimenting with their work place. With the popularity of specialty-based nursing courses in Canada, career opportunities have seen an upward shift. Those studying nursing programs in Toronto stand a high chance of finding exciting opportunities, as the city has a dynamic environment keeping some space for experimentation. In Canada, imagining a nursing career for yourself includes much more than PA announcements and fluorescent hospital lighting. A few non-traditional roles include working as a legal nurse consultant, mental health nurse, nurse educator, public health nurse, home health nurse, school nurse and research nurse.

Working in a variety of different environments helps to develop your skills and when in Canada, you must break the stereotypes. Getting out of your comfort zone and looking into non-traditional alternatives can provide better chances of using your education to build an interesting career for yourself while serving others.

6. Canada is a pool of multi-cultural students

(Removed the first line) A majority of international students studying nursing courses in Canada hail from countries like China, India, Poland, Philippines, UK and USA.

Being the first nation to declare multiculturalism as a policy, Canada provides a harmonious environment, assuring all citizens are aware of their rights and responsibilities. The country accommodates over two hundred nationalities with more than 20% of Canadians born in other countries. Hence, the dominance of international students in the field of nursing too.

A majority of international students pursue nursing programs in Toronto since the city is home to 100 distinct ethnic groups. Being the largest city of Canada, Toronto accommodates a population of nearly 6 million people, which makes it one of the highly preferred location for visitors and immigrants.

7. Salary & benefits

After completing your nursing education, there are certain things you must know about working as a Registered Nurse in Canada. These things include varying pay scales, professional benefits and the level of job security you can expect in Canada.

- Average Salary

Many factors contribute towards deciding the basic salary of a nurse, depending upon the area of specialization and the working hours being put in. In most of the cases, the average salary of RN in Canada is more than CAD 60,000. The high paying scales for RNs make their job equally respectable as that of a doctor or any other high rank healthcare professional.

- Flexible work schedules

Working as an international nurse can also offer sufficient day offs which are compensated against the each extra hour that you work. (Removed the last bit)

- Health insurance is covered

Being a healthcare provider yourself, you get an access to comprehensive health insurance plans, which cover you and your family members.

- Assistance in Child Care

To ensure full attention to the kids of nurses working at odd hours, many hospitals and institutions provide the facility of childcare where the kids are taken well care of, as and when required.

Getting a thorough knowledge of facts listed above should help you make the most of your study experience in Canada. Along with the advancement of your nursing education, studying a nursing course in Canada will also make you culturally aware as you interact with other people in their own native settings. So, get your facts checked, pick the right program and set on your journey to become a Global Nurse.

#nursing programs #best nursing programs #Nursing Course In Canada #nursing career #nursing #global nursing program

0 notes

encounter21 · 7 years

Text

When the Bodies hit the Floor: PvP and You

Everyone defines PvP differently, but at its core it is players working against other players. I find it one of the most enjoyable aspects of larp, but it is a deeply divisive topic. To a lot of people, PvP is a dirty word, evoking pointless deaths ('toilet muggings', as the UK larp lingo goes), however it can (and does) add alot to certain types of games. It is also important to understand that it encompasses a much wider range of behaviors that stabbing someone up in a dark corner. Having said that, there are some things to think about before including PvP as part of your game, both as a player and a game runner.

What PvP is: I (and thus this blog) define PvP as players working directly against other players. I always split it into two categories dependent on the methods being used: violent and social. Violent PvP involves stabbing people up, and is by far the most straightforward. It’s worth noting that this violence is almost always intended to be lethal. Social PvP is the act of using non-violent means to work against other players. It encompasses rumors, political cartoons, shouting down, political maneuvering, lying, manipulation, etc. It is by far the most common form, but it easily be just as lethal as direct violence in the right setting (Think Cersei in Game of Thrones. She is never the one holding the knife).

What PvP is not: I am not talking about people who simply go around killing other characters for no reason. Personally I think this is a bit of a strawman anyway; though character motivations are not always obvious, the majority of people still have them. FOIP can often make it hard to find out people's motives, and it’s very easy for hurt feelings to cloud judgment, but it always worth taking a step back from the situation. I personally recommend talking over things at debrief if you still have some negative feelings about it. You might not get closure depending on the game, but it is a good step in reinforcing your IC/OC boundaries. The other thing to remember is that PvP is rarely civil, which is where it differs from conflict. Conflict is when two players disagree, PvP is when they *do* something about it. A discussion is rarely going to be PvP, A shouting match will almost always be.

Why I dislike systems with blanket PvP bans: I agree that violent PvP doesn’t belong in every system, however I think it must be remembered that UK larp is not a collaborative story telling exercise. It is at its core competitive (in much the way real life is). Everyone has goals. Conflict is 100% necessary for a decent game. Making this kind of conflict unacceptable on an OC level causes problems. For one thing, people all define PvP differently. While it is a term that is used everywhere, I have never found a consensus on its meaning, which means certain actions will be considered as cheating by some people and not others. So let’s say you solve this with a no Violent PvP rule. For some games this is a good approach (so long as it is clearly stated. Never expect your players to read your mind), but not all. I am not advocating for completely lawless systems; consequences are a large part of Larp. However, I larp to escape feeling helpless. I can always be proactive in larp. Sometimes knowing PvP is an option (even if it’s a very dangerous, bad one) is that little extra detail that stops you feeling trapped. Having had a lot of problems with sexism at games, knowing that if things got truly unbearable *I could* address it IC (with horrific consequences of course) was the only thing keeping me sane. Think about what works for your games, but before instituting a blanket ban think about why you are doing so, and what you gain.

Harsh IC consequences are often enough to stop motiveless pvp,but leave options open for people willing to take the risk.

Bullying, Boundaries and PvP: Unfortunately, PvP can occasionally be used as an excuse to bully people, both in and out of character. By all means, play a dick, but there is an art in knowing just where that line is. Larp is meant to be fun. And while conflict and losing are part of that fun, there are times you need to take a step back and think about both the IC and OC implications of what you are doing. For example, picking on someone who has never larped before is not the same as going after a very experienced roleplayer. Of course, it can be difficult to tell the difference, and I’m not saying you should let new players get away with everything regardless of IC motivation, characterisation etc. But you should be considerate of OC factors. Similarly if you know someone has just had lots of upset with a real-life partner cheating, perhaps don’t rub similar experiences in their face in game. Its legitimate roleplay, but also makes you kind of a dick. PvP can be done in more than one way, and some is much more interesting to interact with (as the victim, or even as a bystander) than others. For example, what to do if there is someone you don’t like in your tent. You could kick them out. This is an acceptable form of social pvp, but it is a short action that has no further interaction. The person you have kicked out is gone. You could alternately let them stay but make lots of snide comments, and make it clear they aren’t welcome. This interaction will last longer thus providing more roleplay for everyone involved and also allows for much more reaction (and retaliation) on their part. While PvP is inherently healthy for most systems, there is more than one way to skin a cat. And the method that involves the most roleplay for the most people is generally the best one. If you are really unsure about boundaries, talk to people OC about them. But be warned, although people often get very upset about PvP, this doesn’t inherently mean you did something wrong; character death is often a very emotional subject. Debriefing with people afterwards is generally a good plan if your game allows for it.

There are no hard and fast rules, but I do suggest thinking about things before you do them. Good questions to ask are: Will this create game? How would I react if this was done to my character? Are there any OC factors I should take into account? Do I have a good IC reason to do this? Am I willing to deal with the (inevitable) retaliation?

Unilateral PvP: If you involve yourself in any form of PvP, you need to be ready for PvP to be aimed back at you. This is not a general statement, it is a fundamental truth. I have run several games where people have indicated they love pvp but also asked never to be targeted. This is an impossible state of affairs for a couple of reasons.

1) Anyone being immune robs all other players involved of their player agency. There must always be a way to fight back.

2) You really should not be dishing things out that you are unwilling to deal with yourself. If you think being on the receiving end of PvP is a terrible thing that will ruin your game, then perhaps you should not be inflicting it on others.

Personally, my best character deaths have all been at the hands of other players, and losing at such conflicts is as much of my definition of PvP as being the one with the dagger (or blackmail information). It is not everyone’s jam. And that’s fine. There is nothing inherently good or bad about liking different sorts of games, but part of player agency is there being consequences to actions. After all, actions are meaningless if they do not have any sort of impact. And in the case of PvP those consequences will almost certainly come in the form of more PvP. You can not play a violent, aggressive character who shouts at everyone and expect no one to take issue.

Knives-out, Knives-in: Group design and PvP: Some people don’t like PvP, and that is perfectly fair. And if people want to avoid PvP in their games that is perfectly legit. When you are designing a group for a game, I recommend having one of two policies: Knives-in (intergroup PvP is legit) or Knives-out (The group are a unit, unless something really dramatic changes in uptime all conflict should be pointed outwards). If you agree your group is Knives-out, you should do what you can to keep it that way. Sometimes characters evolve and change in a way that this becomes impossible (if your IC sister steals your IC girlfriend you don’t need to sit there and take it without comment), but you should never go out of your way to break a knives-out rule. Betrayal is absolutely some people's jam, but other people hate it. If they are in a knives-out group, chances are they hate it. OC communication is really really important for this. My first group concept one of my friends was secretly playing a nightmare cultist the whole time and betrayed me horribly leading to my character’s death. I was 100% cool with this. And it worked because she knew I was down for a knives-in group. However I have friends where something like that would have ruined their entire game. And that’s fair. The important thing is making sure everyone is on the same page. I would state however, having a knives-out group doesn’t mean the rest of your group are obliged to go along with whatever you do. Conflict can still exist. People will still play their characters, you might not all agree on every point. It just means PvP and betrayal will be the nuclear option (Think of it in terms of real world friendships. I don’t agree with everything my friends do. I am happy to tell this to them, but I don’t undermine them, pick fights or put them in bad situations on purpose).

Roundup: As always, the most important things are IC/OC boundaries and Communication. When you are involving yourself in PvP just take a second to think about motives (were you just stabbed in the dark? Ask yourself why someone might want to do that) and make sure conflict stays inside the game. If you get a chance to debrief with people you have pvp (or really any sort of intense RP with) then do so, even if it’s just a chat over messenger.

TL:DR

No one really agrees on what PvP actually is

So it’s best to use a broad definition of: Anytime you are working directly against other PCs

Never dish out anything you aren’t willing to take

Think about what is fun for both parties and how to make PvP inclusive rather than exclusive

OC communication is key, make sure you debreif.

PvP is not a dirty word

#larp #pvp #game design #live action roleplay #lrp #conflict #player versus player

11 notes · View notes

yellowfeaverpainting · 4 years

Text

annotated bibliography for my English class

I am focusing my research paper on religious influence and how religious influence can affect a mass population of people for the worse

Is religious influence a good thing?

Religious influence can sway the mass to conform to the opinions of an individual person or group.

Annotated bibliography possible support:

Ely, Gretchen E. “When Religious Ideology Drives Abortion Policy, Poor Women Suffer the Consequences.” The Conversation, 4 Jan. 2020, theconversation.com/when-religious-ideology-drives-abortion-policy-poor-women-suffer-the-consequences-121906.

Gretchen Ely is a proffessor and assosiate dean at the university of buffalo writes an artical about the abortion policies in other contries and what those countries predominant religion is. She writes about how strict laws are purposly put into effect to create it harder for a person to afford an abortion. She talks about how such laws and acts are advocated specifically by christian politicians in the United states.

“Title X funds have never been used to pay for abortion services. But by eliminating funding for facilities that offer abortions in addition to other reproductive services, the Trump administration rule may leave millions of low-income Planned Parenthood patients without family planning care. The new rule is part of an old American effort, promoted by Christian activists and lawmakers, to make legal abortions as difficult as possible to obtain”(Ely 2020).

The quote i have choosen supports my reasearch because it gives an example of how religouse influence can affect reproductive health, specifically abortion and how abortion can be a nessecity to women all over the world but due to some out dated laws influenced by certian belifs abortion are hard to get in certian areas of the world.

Veselka, Camille. “A Detrimental Influence: The Effect Religion Has on Laws.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 4 Feb. 2012, www.huffpost.com/entry/a-detrimental-influence-t_b_1106045.

Huffpost published an article entitled A Detrimental Influence: The Effect Religion has on Laws. The article goes on to explain the influence religion has on laws. It gives example such as how same-sex marrige used to be illegal in some states. It talks about certain forms of contraception are illegal because the predominant religion has placed a large importance on procreation. Not to long ago same-sex marrige was illegale until suprime court ruled against it. The laws against same-sex amrrige where all completly based on religion and personal befeifs. In no way was it causing any harm to anyone and yet it was still illegal.

“Religion should remain what it truly is — a voluntary belief, not science and not law. One of the main issues in the world today is the fact that to some people, religion and the Bible or the Torah or the Qur’an is science and the law. This belief has, and still is, causing fatal problems throughout the world. In many places, forms of contraception are illegal. Even if these women are extremely impoverished, and cannot feed themselves (let alone a child), and have a large chance of dying due to unsafe birth conditions, they have no choice but to have the baby. Even more controversial is the issue of abortion. 52 of the world’s 196 countries only allow abortions to save the mother’s life. That is 26 percent of the world. This prevents family planning worldwide and can be extremely detrimental to a woman’s mental and physical health.”(Veselka 2012).

The quote i chose from the huffpost article is important because it explains why religion should not be in lawmaking. It gives examples of how religion can influence people's personal lives by changing laws such as who they can or can not marry. Religion in many ways is a person's opinion. While it is important to have an opinion they shouldn’t be the determining factor in law making. If you decide to create a law based purely on your opinion you force everyone to follow something they don’t agree with. You're forcing your opinion on other people. Religion Is good to give people a moral compass. Don’t steal, don’t murder, don’t lie, all good advice from a moral stand point.

Deseret News. “Church Sends Email to Utah Latter-Day Saints Urging Them to Vote No on Marijuana Initiative.” Deseret News, Deseret News, 24 Aug. 2018, www.deseret.com/2018/8/23/20651840/church-sends-email-to-utah-latter-day-saints-urging-them-to-vote-no-on-marijuana-initiative

Last year the lds church sent an email out to the members of its church urging them to vote no to the law legalizing medical marijuana. The Deseret new writes and explains the reasoning behind the church's decision. The question is thought would this email be a breach of separation between church and state. No matter the reasoning behind the email it is blatantly telling its members how to vote.

“As a member of the coalition, we urge voters of Utah to vote NO on Proposition 2, and join us in a call to state elected officials to promptly work with medical experts, patients, and community leaders to find a solution that will work for all Utahns, without the harmful effects that will come to pass if Proposition 2 becomes law”(Deseret News 2018).

The quote I chose is taken directly from an email the lds sent to its members. It is a specific example of separation between church and state. The separation between church and state is the jurisprudential concept for defining political distance in the relationship between religious organizations and the nation state. Religions shouldn't tell people how to vote or what to vote for and politicians should not base their views or how the country should be run on their own personal religious values. Separation between church and state is a way to create balance between everyone's own personal views and morals.

History.com Editors. “Crusades.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 7 June 2010, www.history.com/topics/middle-ages/crusades.

Every major religion has some kind of crusade. Some kind of purification time period in which a religion tries to purge any other religion. Such is the case in the 13 century when the christian faith lead cursades to take back their holy lands such as jerusalem from other major religions such as muslim or jedaism through war and violence. In modern day Iran the christine population has dropped from 1.5 million to less than 120,000 because of religious persecution in the middle east.

“Throughout the remainder of the 13th century, a variety of Crusades aimed not so much to topple Muslim forces in the Holy Land but to combat any and all of those seen as enemies of the Christian faith. The Crusaders slaughtered hundreds of men, women, and children in their victorious entrance into Jerusalem.”(History.com Editors 2010)

I used the crusades as an ancient example to show that religious influence is not a new concept. Religious influence has been around as long as religion has. The crusade are specifically a christion example of a extreme way of converting people to their religion. There are religions that still do this today, it has never gone away.

“Scopes Monkey Trial Begins.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 29 July 2019, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/monkey-trial-begins.

The Scopes Monkey Trials is another example of separation between church and state. In which a teacher was arrested for teaching about evolution in a school in tennessee. Tennessee in 1925 passed a law which prohibits the teaching of darwinism in schools. It was the first law in the United states that banned the teaching of evolution. There are currently 14 states in the United States that use tax dollars to teach creationism within public schools.

“The Butler bill, which had been passed in March 1925, made it a misdemeanor punishable by fine to “teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.”

I wanted to use the scopes monkey trials as another historical example of religious influence and separation between church and state but the interesting twist about the scopes monkey trials is that the case was lost. The teacher who was convicted had to pay a fee in the end for breaking the law but the verdict was overturned due to a technicality. Even though the verdict was guilty the public recognized The scopes monkey trials raised the public's awareness of teaching theology and/or modoer science in public schools. The trail raises the distinct divide between urban and rural american life in the 1920’s. The scopes monkey trials is used as an emblem on the creationist v. elelutionist controversy.

azar, beth. “A Reason to Believe.” Monitor on Psychology, American Psychological Association, Dec. 2010, www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe.

The american Psychology Association entitled A reason to believe. The article talks about the history of how religion was first developed by prehistoric humans. It goes on to explain how religion was first developed as a way to explain the world around them. Before science was able to explain the word around ancient civilizations used legends and stories, those legends and stories were their religion. These stories influenced how they saw the world around them. They created the wrath of gods to explain natural phenomenons. The world influenced their beliefs. They needed to understand the world around them and created religion to compensate for a lack of understanding.

“most researchers don’t believe that the cognitive tendencies that bias us toward religious belief evolved specifically for thinking about religion. Rather, they likely served other adaptive purposes. For example, because people are quick to believe that someone or something is behind even the most benign experiences, they may perceive the sound of the wind rustling leaves as a potential predator. In evolutionary terms, says Atran, it was probably better for us to mistakenly assume that the wind was a lion than to ignore the rustling and risk death.”(azar 2010)

I wanted to use this quote to show that there are also physiological reasons to religious influence that before technology and we had the brain comprehension to understand the world around us, before we had complex thinking religious influence was there even before religion had a name. Iot was a sort of prehistoric thinking that kept us moving and aware of the world around us, it kept us alive before we had the understanding to do it ourselves.

“Why Do We Have Religion Anyway?” Association for Psychological Science - APS, 9 Nov. 2011,www.psychologicalscience.org/news/were-only-human/why-do-we-have-religion-anyway.html.

This article by the Association for Psychological Science explains how religion influences a person's self control. How growing up in a religion can influence how a person views themselves in a community. It can promote people to be more aware how others in their community view them. But it also leads to judging your neighbors and the way they live their life. It promotes a sense of community but also a sense of keeping up with the joneses. People have to make themselves look better than their neighbors. They convince themselves that the way they are living their life is more moral than another because they are living in a religious community that encourages this train of thought.

“It’s not entirely clear what cognitive mechanism is at work in religion’s influence on self-control. One possibility is that religion makes people mindful of an ever watchful God, and thus encourages more self-monitoring. Or religious priming may activate concerns of supernatural punishment. A more secular explanation is that religious priming makes people more concerned about their reputation in the community, leading to more careful self-monitoring.”

The quote I have chosen shows how religion influences how people act in their social groups. It is another example of how religion physiological effects people. It influences how they see themselves, how they see their neighbors and how they act around their neighbors. Y much influences how people act the same way we would train a pet, through punishment and reward. You do something good and moral, you follow the rules we set for you, you go to Heaven, Nirvana, Paradise, Moksha, you get blessed. If you're bad and break the rules you go to Hell, Hades, Samsara, you get punished. It is the same idea of when people use cautionary tales to scare young children into following the rules and being good.

Ludden, David. “Why Do People Believe in God?” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 21 Aug. 2018, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201808/why-do-people-believe-in-god.

Psychology Today writes an article entitled why do people believe in God. The article talks about how people use religion as a safety net in their everyday lives. How undeveloped countries have a higher religious rate than developed countries. This is because people use God and religion as a safety blanket for their cruel world. They believe in a higher power that will keep them or their family safe. The article talks about how affordable health care can also play a role in the religious rates because the United State has a high religious rate but the article argues that this is because we don’t have affordable health care. We don’t have that assurance that our government will come to our rescue when we are sick or injured so the idea of a higher power that will always be there for us looks more appealing.

“Finally, there are societal factors that influence the degree of religious belief within societies. As a general rule, religious belief is considerably lower in developed countries compared with the underdeveloped world. The United States, with its high standard of living and high religiosity, is the glaring exception. However, as Mercier and his colleagues point out, Japan and Western European have universal health care and extensive social safety nets, as opposed to the U.S. The Japanese and the Europeans know their governments will come to their aid in their hour of need. But the laissez-faire attitudes of American society make people’s futures less certain and the belief in a benevolent God more attractive.” (Ludden 2018).

This quote is to reflex that not only does religion influence the world but outside forces also influence a religion. People turn to God when the world has turned against them so it makes sense that underdeveloped countries have higher religious rates. It's the same when a dying atheist suddenly turns toward religion in his last moments, to have some sort of safety net. Religion is the escape, the light at the end of the tunnel for those who have nothing. Religion gives hope and peace, it brings people comfort in times or anxiety but if you're not worrying about where your next meal will come or if you have a safe place to sleep tonight or how you’ll get clean water then you don’t see God's guiding light as a necessity in your life.

Religious Aspects, msu.edu/~shahfaiz/Salem/religion.html.

In the 13th century the puritan church were slaughtering people on the premise that they were witches. The puritain church encouraged its members to condon their neighbors as witches. It was a moment where fear controlled a religion and anything they deemed different or going against their ways was evil and immoral and therefore put to death. The Salem witch trials are an example of religious influence and fear working together to slaughter innocent people. Some people at this time were so brainwashed into thinking that any little thing out of place was because of magic, anything they couldn’t explain through religion or the bible was thoroughfare witchcraft and evil.

Puritan lifestyle was influenced heavily by the church and Christian beliefs. According to Discovery Education, “Church was the cornerstone of the mainly Puritan society of the 17th century.” Puritan laws were extremely rigid and the members of society were expected to follow a strict moral code. Due to this fact, anything that was believed to go against this code was considered a sin and deserved to be punished. The Puritans also believed strongly in the wrath of God and did everything they could to prevent themselves from receiving it. This is why the witch scare was taken so seriously and the accused were punished harshly. The first women to be accused as witches were those who strayed from the Puritan lifestyle and were considered to be social outcasts.

Religion can influence a mass group of people for the worse is what this quote and the entire Salem witch trials show. It's a religious group of people who teach to be different is a sin. The puritan s were scared of God’s wrath and had to quel anything they deemed evil and sin immediately or else god would punish them. They used their religious influence to keep people in line and to accuse neighbors, friends, even family. It is an historical example of fear and religious influence coming together to create the perfect storm to slaughter the falsely accused people.

Fagan, Patrick. “Why Religion Matters: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability.” The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org/civil-society/report/why-religion-matters-the-impact-religious-practice-social-stability.

While religious influence can definitely have a negative effect on the masses it can also have a positive effect as well. In the article by the heritage foundation talks about all of the positive things religion does for a person and community. Religion can influence people to become better by not smoking or drinking. It can encourage people to reach out and help those in need. It promotes the necessity of family and also gives young children a support system in case they can’t go to family. Religious influence has negative effects and positive effects just like anything else.

Considerable evidence indicates that religious involvement reduces "such problems as sexual permissiveness, teen pregnancy, suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, and to some extent deviant and delinquent acts, and increases self esteem, family cohesiveness and general well being.... Some religious influences have a modest impact whereas another portion seem like the mental equivalent of nuclear energy.... More generally, social scientists are discovering the continuing power of religion to protect the family from the forces that would tear it down." (Fagan)

This last quote is to show the positive effect religion can have on one's life. It can give people hope and provide a strong moral compass for people. It gives young children strong morals to grow up with and a support system they can go to outside of their parents. Religion can provide good life advice and hope to those living in troubling times. It helps people from dark physiological places and even out of dangerous situations.

azar, beth. “A Reason to Believe.” Monitor on Psychology, American Psychological Association, Dec. 2010, www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe. (azar 2010)

History.com Editors. “Crusades.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 7 June 2010, www.history.com/topics/middle-ages/crusades.

Ludden, David. “Why Do People Believe in God?” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 21 Aug. 2018, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201808/why-do-people-believe-in-god.

Religious Aspects, msu.edu/~shahfaiz/Salem/religion.html.

“Scopes Monkey Trial Begins.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 29 July 2019, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/monkey-trial-begins.

Veselka, Camille. “A Detrimental Influence: The Effect Religion Has on Laws.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 4 Feb. 2012, www.huffpost.com/entry/a-detrimental-influence-t_b_1106045.

“Why Do We Have Religion Anyway?” Association for Psychological Science - APS, 9 Nov. 2011, www.psychologicalscience.org/news/were-only-human/why-do-we-have-religion-anyway.html.

0 notes

rolandfontana · 5 years

Text

Americans and Guns: Are the Politics Changing?

Igor Volsky. Photo by Peter Dohan

Igor Volsky learned to tell the difference between what politicians say and what they do when he was growing up in the former Soviet Union. The lesson came back to him forcefully as a teenager exposed to the debates and controversy about gun control in the U.S.

After the mass shootings in San Bernardino, Ca., (2015) and Orlando, Fl., (2016), annoyed by what he called the “risk-averse” approaches taken by politicians, he decided to form Guns Down America, a nonprofit organization aimed at harnessing the national consensus that more regulation can help reduce gun violence. He turned his policy ideas into a forthcoming book as well: Guns Down: How to Defeat the NRA and Build a Safer Future with Fewer Guns.

In a conversation with The Crime Report’s Julia Pagnamenta, Volsky explains why he thinks the chances for meaningful gun control have improved, why firearms manufacturers are vulnerable to a concerted campaign, and what he thinks the Founding Fathers might have made of the current debates over the Second Amendment.

The Crime Report: How did you get started in gun control and reduction advocacy?

IGOR VOLSKY: My entrance into the gun movement really started with a Tweet storm after the San Bernardino shooting [December 2015]. That came after a deep frustration that we have lawmakers who say the right thing after a shooting, or at the very least express their “thoughts and prayers” after a shooting, but do not actually do anything to reduce gun deaths. And so when I sat down on the computer the day of the San Bernardino shootings, I saw all of the lawmakers who voted against background checks in the aftermath of the [Sandy Hook school shootings in December 2012], now Tweeting their thoughts and prayers as if they cared about actually doing something to reduce gun deaths, that just made me really angry.

Probably because I came from a background where the gaps between what a politician actually said and what a politician actually does is really wide, and I found that to be the case on this issue.

So [gaining a platform] really brought me into the movement in a real way, and when I got to the table I recognized that there were lots of great organizations that were working on this issue, but they had a scope that was relatively narrow. Their scope was what can we get done in this Congress? What is politically possible in this moment? What incremental change can we secure? And I realized from my work on other issues that there existed a space for an organization that talked about long-term goals, that talked about where do we want to be in 10, 15, 20 years? And for me that point was a future with fewer guns and making guns harder to get. I got to that point by looking at all of the research. I looked at countries around the world and there is unanimity on the point of where there are more guns, there are more gun deaths.

The book is really an effort to reset the conversation. After the [February 2018 Parkland school shooting] there is so much new energy in this movement. There are folks who are coming into the issue, and into politics, fresh, and we as a movement need to meet them where they are. The American public is way ahead of politicians on this issue, and I view it as my role as an advocate to help close the gap between the kinds of incremental reform that politicians are still putting forward and where I think most Americans are.

TCR: Is there a large discrepancy between where politicians stand on gun control and what the American public believes?

VOLSKY: Politicians are naturally risk averse. Whether it is guns, or whatever issue, they use talking points, framing, and messaging that is safe. You saw that same dynamic in marriage equality. In 2007, 2008, the country was clearly in a place where the country was ready to move towards marriage equality, and yet you had a bunch of Democrats running for office, or for the presidency in 2008, who would only go as far domestic or civil unions. They were just afraid that a mythical number of voters would drop out. The reason why I think Obama didn’t do it in 2008, didn’t do it in 2009, was because he was risk averse. The established and conventional wisdom was, you can’t go that far, you will alienate voters.

And we saw in 2012 once the president [Obama] embraced marriage equality, or first Joe Biden, nothing happened. Nobody cared because the public was already there. And I think the same thing is true on the gun issue.

‘Frankly, I think the gun movement [is] where we were on marriage equality in 2007 and 2008.’

[California Senator] Kamala Harris just held a town hall where she talked about background checks; where she talked about banning assault weapons. Those are all good things, we support all of those things, but it is time for lawmakers, for candidates, to meet Americans where they are; to go bolder on this issue because we really as a country have evolved on this issue. Frankly, I think the gun movement [is] where we were on marriage equality in 2007 and 2008; where Americans were in a bolder place than politicians. The purpose of the book and the organization [Guns Down America] is to move our conversation towards that bolder place.

TCR: How did your personal background influence your decision to enter gun reduction advocacy work?

VOLSKY: The reason I work in progressive politics at all is because I grew up in the Soviet Union, where you were told every single day that lawmakers were working for you, and they are making things better for you, and you are all equal/ The reality, the reason why we literally had to flee, first to Israel, and then to America was that being Jewish in the Soviet Union at that time—and I suspect is also to some degree true today in Russia—was very difficult. You were locked out of opportunities, you couldn’t go to colleges, you couldn’t get good jobs just because you were Jewish.

From a very early age [I was exposed to] the gap between what lawmakers actually say and what they do in reality. And this issue followed me to America, and so when I sat down on Dec. 2, 2015 [San Bernardino shooting] and saw the hypocrisy of “thoughts and prayers,” I [realized] I had honestly seen it before, and in that moment it really sparked an anger inside of me that I think goes back to those roots.

TCR: You write in the book that the Founding Fathers would have embraced Guns Down’s policies. Can you put this debate into historical perspective?

VOLSKY: The history here is really important. The fact that during the drafting of the Constitution and the drafting of the [Second] Amendment there was no argument about an absolute right to own a firearm, and to the extent that it was discussed, their understanding of what it meant to own a firearm really extended to the militia, not to the individual. And this notion of an individual right to own a firearm, which the Supreme Court would then find many years later in 2008 in the Heller case [District of Columbia v. Heller], that wasn’t something that we birthed in the beginning of our nation.

That is really something that came out following the revolt within the National Rifle Association (NRA) leadership in 1977, and it came out of a multi-million dollar propaganda campaign on behalf of the NRA and the really successful work they were able to do in the legal profession through the states to build and create a new understanding of what the Second Amendment meant.

The argument that I make is that the Founding Fathers would be shocked to learn that the Second Amendment actually extended individual rights to own and have a firearm. That is certainly not the way they talked about it; that’s not the way they wrote about it; that wasn’t the debate at the time. It really evolved into that understanding as a result of a very powerful gun lobby and that of course has created a standstill in our politics and has cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

TCR: You cite research showing that Americans make up five percent of the global population, yet they make-up approximately half of the world’s civilian gun owners. Are these striking figures part of an historical continuum or did a specific event or political era trigger mass gun ownership?

VOLSKY: Americans have long had a place in their culture for guns. This didn’t make it into the final book, but it certainly started as America began to expand West. Guns were used for all kinds of purposes, to clear the land of indigenous people. That was also the case during colonial days when guns were used to enslave people and exert a degree of power. That’s just the history of guns in America. And you certainly move into what was happening during the time of the Martin Luther King assassination [April 1968], and the John F. Kennedy assassination [November 1963], and the rise of urban unrest, and how certain parts of the population responded to that with gun ownership.

What I find more interesting is the change in the National Rifle Association (NRA) that really occurred in the latter end of the 1970s. There was new leadership at the time, and with it came this notion that any kind of gun control violates the Second Amendment. That the right within the Second Amendment is far broader than past NRA leaders, than the Supreme Court, had argued, and that’s really in many ways the starting point of gun fundamentalism that said you cannot regulate my ability to have a gun. That my freedom to have a gun for all intent of purposes is absolute. That’s an idea that the NRA birthed in the late 1970s, and that’s an idea they spent millions of dollars propagating.

So, whereas before Americans had guns, [they] also understood that those guns could be controlled for the interest of public safety. You actually saw that in the Wild West days, where many of those towns actually had very strict gun control. You saw that in the way the NRA publicly thought about guns in the early part of the 1900s; that all changed in the 1970s. So part of the argument I make is that the modern notion from gun enthusiasts that the Second Amendment is absolute, and that their right to own any kind of gun could bear almost no restriction, that’s a pure invention.

The NRA invented that for two reasons: one is to sell memberships, and two is to help the gun industry sell more guns.

TCR: You write that the NRA is powerful not only because it shapes gun policy, but also because it has built a social community and identity.

VOLSKY: The social construct piece, the social identity of the gun owner was probably the most interesting part for me as I began researching and writing the book. It was important for me to understand: why is it that gun owners are so much more likely to call their members of Congress? [Why] are [they] so much more likely to be plugged into the advocacy on their side of the issue? The NRA doesn’t make arguments around facts and figures, they make arguments around what it means for an individual to own a firearm and what kind of individual that is.

In their construct, when you own a gun, you are a great patriot, you are somebody who is living the spirit and the ideals of our Founding Fathers, and the very core of what it means to be an American. That’s how they structure all of their arguments. If you, as a gun owner, are the quintessential American who has all the values for freedom and democracy, then the opposition is the exact opposite of that.

They are building a set of values that goes into social issues. So you are more likely to have certain views on abortion, certain views of LGBTQ rights, certain economic views. It really is an entryway for you to construct an entire worldview that everyone in your community shares. That’s really the power they were able to tap into.

The gun control movement in contrast argues in a very different way. It argues through facts and figures, and through logic. As a result, it doesn’t have the same kind of emotional resonance as the other side.

TCR: You describe how common and routine it has become for schools to engage in active shooter training. How have these shootings transformed education in this country, and the training’s psychological effects on students?

VOLSKY: I am 33. I have never undergone a lock-down drill in school. The first shooting I vividly remember is the Columbine shooting on April 20th, 1999. I was in homeroom, we heard about it, we talked about it. [But] there wasn’t any suggestion that now we are going to change all the policies, that we’re going to do active shooting drills. As I point out in the book, at that point when I was in school, the percentage of public schools that had locked down drills was relatively low. That really changed after the Newtown shooting.

It changed after [Sandy Hook] because we had so many more mass shootings, because the industry had more time to advertise their military style weapons to young people, and they do that deliberately because they want an in into that market. As a result, young people are really on the front lines of our broken gun laws, and the fact is that we, as a country, have made a decision to basically let the gun industry do whatever it wants.

When I went to the March for Our Lives [March 2018] here in D.C., I talked to a lot of students and a lot of teachers about what it meant to be in a lock-down drill. It really fell into two different camps. One camp was that it was a really traumatic experience. It’s really scary, but what’s increasingly been happening—and this is both in the anecdotes I heard, but it’s also chronicled in David and Laura Hogg’s book [#NeverAgain: A New Generation Draws the Line], and also in the movie, The Eighth Grade—is that it’s become so ubiquitous that it is now treated as a joke. This is just another thing. Even in the Parkland shooting, Laura and David Hogg talk about how in the actual shooting, when it was actually happening, a whole bunch of kids thought it was just a joke.

‘We’re more concerned about stuff coming out of guns, rather than making sure guns don’t get into the schools.’

On top of that, you have different companies that are trying to profit from it. Having all sorts of backpacks that are bullet-proof, different vests that are bullet-proof. And so we’re in this place where we are putting our kids in danger, and we’re somehow more concerned about how to protect them from the stuff that is coming out of the guns, rather than making sure that guns don’t get into the schools, and into the movie theaters, and into the malls in the first place.

TCR: What role does American media coverage have in shaping the conversation around gun violence?

VOLSKY: What I think is important to recognize is when I started writing the book in August 2016, the movement itself was different, and the way Americans themselves related to the issue was different. Before Parkland you would walk into rooms with movement leaders, or you would walk into just general conversation, and there was a great divide between the way people would talk about mass shootings and the way people talked about everyday gun violence that plagues a lot of our urban communities. Mass shootings were always seen as a big problem that we have to solve, while everyday gun violence was barely mentioned.

As a result of the Parkland movement, and the very smart way that the leaders of that movement weaved in and connected every day gun violence to mass shootings, I think both the movement and Americans at large see the two as intertwined. As a result, I think the media is really catching up, and in many ways, closing the gap. Certainly more work still needs to be done.

In the book, I discuss to some degree about the great community-based violence intervention programs that are running in cities across the country, like Cease Fire, and Cure Violence, and others that really changed community norms to make sure that people don’t pick up the guns in the first place. And there really is a greater recognition of that both within the general public and our elected leaders. I think we were able to make significant progress on that front.

TCR: What do you think of sociologist Zeynep Tufekci’s warning in a 2012 piece in the Atlantic in which she cautions newspapers and the media against printing “detailed information about the killer and his methods” because it possibly generates a copy-cat effect?

VOLSKY: In all of my work, and certainly in the book, with the exception of the Australian chapter, I don’t talk about the perpetrators. I don’t even frankly know their names because I don’t want to glorify the perpetrators and the killers.

More broadly, there is research, you are citing some of it, into the notion that the perpetrators of mass shootings are not necessarily copying other shooters. Some of them certainly are, and some of them have admitted to it. But the other factor here is that they have a fantasy of being in a shoot-out with police, of attracting the kind of attention that these acts generate, and that’s part of the calculus of committing the crime. I have no interest in feeding into that.

TCR: In certain European countries, such as Great Britain, the vast majority of law enforcement personnel don’t carry guns. Do you think that weaponizing our law enforcement contributes to perpetuating violence in our society?

VOLSKY: Research on this shows we have over 393 million guns in circulation and that in the states with higher rates of gun ownership, the police are three times more likely to die than in states with lower gun ownership. It’s also true the opposite way. You are more likely to die at the hands of police if you live in an area with higher rates of gun ownership. That suggests our rate of gun ownership in the United States puts both us and law enforcement officials at risk. It’s also a fact that law enforcement is not immune from this shoot-first, ask-questions-second culture that the NRA perpetuates. All of these are factors that contribute to the problem.

Can we move to a place where law enforcement officials don’t carry firearms? I’ll just say that in a country with 393 million guns that’s a challenge, a great challenge. I think the policing aspect and police brutality is something that the gun control movement hasn’t really grappled with. But it is something that they are stepping into and recognizing that they are part of the same general problem that we are all trying to solve. I fully recognize that it is incredibly complex, but that our ubiquity of firearms is certainly a contributing factor.

TCR: Please describe Guns Down proposals, such as the New Second Amendment Compact.

VOLSKY: The New Second Amendment Compact is [intended to] balance our unbalanced approach to firearms, and to propose a series of proposals that will help get us to a long-term goal of building a future with fewer guns. It’s basically divided into three different buckets.

The first bucket is cracking down on the gun industry. That’s significant because the industry is highly unregulated, and made a business decision in the late 1980s, early 1990s to make firearms of increased lethality, so we’re in a situation where people are dying from gunshot wounds that they would otherwise be surviving because the industry needs to market a new, more powerful weapon. That’s a huge problem and we really need to regulate the industry in a serious way. I propose in the book that the Consumer Safety Board regulate these firearms. We really have to start with the big fish and that’s the industry.

Bucket two is making it significantly harder to get [guns]. I write in the book about all of the latest science that shows that background checks only work in the context of a larger licensing system where it takes a lot longer between when you want the gun and when you actually get a gun. When the checks you have to go through, and the hoops you have to jump through, are far more extensive, we know that works in reducing gun deaths, both suicide and gun crimes. Both domestically and internationally.

The final bucket is an effort to deal with and reduce deaths in urban environments. That’s really about funding community based programs that we know work in changing behaviors and ensuring that people deal with offenses or fights or disagreements in a way that does not include firearms.

TCR: Let’s go back to your first bucket. In the debate around gun violence reduction and control the focus is on gun owners, but in your view transformation hinges on a top-down approach that holds big industries, such as gun manufacturers, accountable.

VOLSKY: Yeah, the top down approach is incredibly important. Part of the reason why we’re in this cycle is because the industry and the lobbies changed the conversation around the Second Amendment, around guns, and these industries pumped much more powerful weapons into our communities and they have not been held accountable.

So the group I run, Guns Down America, is really focused on weakening the industry. The other reason why going after the industry and the lobby is so important is because a lot of times the solutions we talk about are focused on criminalizing the gun owner. I spend some time in the book talking about whatever our solution is we can’t go down the route of criminalizing the gun owner, which historically has disproportionately impacted communities of color, while at the same time giving the industry and the lobby a pass. We can’t stand for that, we can’t make the same mistakes we’ve made in the past. That’s part of the reason why I’ve been emphasizing the industry over the user end.

See also, National Police Foundation report: “Does a Code of Silence Among Students, Parents Abet School Shootings?”

Julia Pagnamenta is a contributing writer to The Crime Report. Readers’ comments are welcome.

Americans and Guns: Are the Politics Changing? syndicated from https://immigrationattorneyto.wordpress.com/

0 notes

zipgrowth · 7 years

Text

The Evolution of the New York City Edtech Scene, Empowering Parents and Tax Policy

This year, Americans seem to be watching government processes closer than they have in the past. Every week, some policy maker, some legislative vote or confirmation hearing is trending on Twitter and Facebook. But Jeanne Allen, founder of the Center for Education Reform has been closely monitoring and evaluating education policy for over 30 years. She is no rookie.

As a staunch education reformer pushing the school choice movement forward, Allen is no friend to teachers unions and school board associations—arguing that they maintain the status quo, or change too slowly for her taste. EdSurge recently talked with Allen about the changes she sees in public schools, and how those changes are impacting education technology. And she offered a sneak peek at what she's expecting from New York City's big edtech conference this year.

The conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity. Listen to a complete version of the interviews below, or on your favorite podcast app (like iTunes or Stitcher).

EdSurge: This week is New York edtech week, where educators, academic researchers, and other company leaders will gather in the Big Apple to wrap up the year. What are your expectations for this years' event and where is the discussion heading?

Jeanne Allen speaking at NY Edtech Week

And so we have learned in the charter school world as well as through higher education [that flexibility] allows people to really develop and implement many of the new tools and services without having to worry about whether or not they're violating some real or perceived law or rule.

Jeanne Allen

Allen: It's part speed date, part brokering and connecting with people who can help you solve your biggest pain points if you happen to be in education, or if you happen to be in edtech, schools and school leaders who can serve as your echo chamber or your proof point for whether what you're doing can happen, and mixed with a bunch of investors walking around looking for the next greatest idea.

It's dynamic and interesting and lots of people converging who have never had a chance to meet yet, and so that's what makes it particularly exciting.

As someone who is on the board of StartEd Accelerator, what are you seeing in the New York City edtech scene evolving?

People talk about Silicon Valley being the really cutting-edge technology place and location, but really New York encompasses a much more global view. First of all, you've got a lot of your financiers, investors there as well, you have people from all over the world coming through. You've got some of your best universities in the world, including NYU, and you've got your largest school systems right nearby.

It really is this great ecosystem. What we see coming out of, not just New York, is people trying to augment and solve some of the biggest issues facing educators. For example, we have a company working on how to make reading logs and reading much more accessible for students and allow parents and teachers to track their reading in real time.

We have folks doing phenomenal stuff with math education. We have someone doing virtual reality. We have a company that's really helping to turn girls on much more with science and technology by helping them start to create their own maker sites.

There's a variety of things that they're showing us can and should be done throughout education, whether it be in pre-K to 12 or higher education or just external from the classroom.

You are a staunch advocate for school choice. You made comments in the past saying, Washington needs to loosen the regulations on districts so they're able to provide options for parents. Now, I'm just going to dive deeper into that a little bit, if Washington does loosen regulations on alternative school models, the onus may fall on parents to hold these schools accountable. I've done a few stories on this in the past, and this is a conclusion that some researchers have come to. How can school districts and policymakers prepare and empower parents to be able to be the ones to hold schools accountable if Washington chooses to loosen the reigns a bit?

Innovation can occur, is able to occur anywhere, and part of what we've learned, through some 26 years of the public charter schooling movement, as well as other school choice efforts, is that to really be able to push the envelope, to be nimble, to be flexible, you need to be loosened up from many of the strings that tend to tie people's hands. Some of those strings are real. They come from some small line in federal law that turns into a regulation that turns into a rule that turns into a habit. Some of them are just habitual.

We thought that this is the way we had to teach science, or we thought this is the way we had to structure our class. And some of them are just because we had not really invited educators, who can be incredibly creative, to dare to dream, to re-cast the way they see education. A lot of it is because we are measuring a couple or one or two fixed points in time to see how well they're doing.

And so education doesn't tend to be a risk venture. It doesn't seem to be someplace where you have lots of time for people to iterate and provide feedback. And so we have learned in the charter school world as well as through higher education [that flexibility] allows people to really develop and implement many of the new tools and services without having to worry about whether or not they're violating some real or perceived law or rule.

What we've said to the federal government as well as many state governments is look, even though you're not responsible for 100 percent of the money, in fact, you're only responsible for only about 10 percent, you probably are responsible for a lot of behaviors happening because you wield such a heavy stick. So why don't you loosen a lot of those rules and regulations (some of them are just guidance) and let people understand, even if it's already the case, that they have much more wide latitude than they might normally think. And sometimes, just by doing that, you tend to release people from some fear that a federal bureaucrat or someone in the state is gonna pick up the phone and say "No, that's not how you were supposed to spend that money." Or "You're in violation of XYZ title."

You bring up some really interesting points. Can you give me an example of a specific regulation that you see that hampered people from innovating?

Let's talk about professional development. There's money for professional development at the federal level, and oftentimes when those monies are allocated, there are some specific uses of funding that are actually enumerated in law. And then regulators go further and say the practice of funding professional development must include the following things, even if the following things weren't actually in the law, and that's the first mistake.

And then what will happen is a school district will call up and say, "There's a company that walked in. They do it online." Or "They do it outside of the classroom." Or "We don't really want to spend an extra day we want to do it this way." And then the feds will say "Based on my reading of the Federal Regulation 1234, you're not allowed to do that." And then they'll issue guidance saying, "Based on our guidance, we told New York City this, we want to tell everybody else that." And that, right away, squashes the interest or proclivity of that school district to do something different.

Now in the case where you have a really reform-minded superintendent or innovator, they're gonna push back. They're gonna say "No, no, no, that's not true. Get me on the phone with so-and-so." Right? And then it becomes the enterprise of negotiating and horse trading, but most of the time it's not that innovative superintendent that's doing it. It's the person in charge of professional development and they don't want to violate what they believe is a verified law.

Okay, so let's say Washington removes some regulations because they're in a position to be able to do that, right, especially with this administration Betsy DeVos who is really saying, "I want to sit down, step back, and allow districts to do what they want to do." And when this begins to happen, how can districts and policymakers empower parents to be able to make the education decisions that are best for their children?

Before I say something about the parents and how the school districts can empower parents, I also want to point out that under the Obama administration, some of the same demands and suggestions for flexibility were actually coming out of the Obama administration. Richard Culatta, for example, was the head of technology services. And he would say to folks, "Look, you are allowed to push the envelope on this. You can combine your technology funds with your reading funds with your professional development funds." He created a roadmap for districts, and many of them followed it and used it, and others, we don't know, did they ignore it, did they not use it, did they not understand it?

It's like any information. Sometimes you have to continue to beat it in people's heads that they can do certain things, even when they don't believe that they can. And so I think that the push and the call for flexibility is very widespread, it's very tri-partisan, I say, maybe not quite as radical in the previous administration as this one and really strings, for example, the interest by the Secretary DeVos in loosening up some of the restrictions on special education is causing the special education industry, if you will, to push back in fear that those monies aren't going to be spent well. The reality is we've not beaten the challenge of special education, and it's critical that we allow school districts and leaders to figure out new ways to address it. That's just another example.

Before we wrap up I want to talk to you about taxes. You wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times in response to Congress's proposed tax plan offering up to $30,000 in tax breaks for families who send their students to private schools. In the letter, you suggest offering breaks for donations to non-profit organizations that help build job skills that you say would be really useful. What other ways can a tax code be used to improve access to quality education for all families, and how could your suggestion impact edtech?

Right now, there's a 529 that's going to be offered to parents to expand 529s to K12 and that will help parents be able to allocate different dollars for their kids' education, particularly those who can afford to put that money away, and that's fine, it's an element of tax reform. It helps create some more opportunities for parents. But to us, it doesn't address the fundamental changes that are needed in the education landscape. What we had advocated for is having a much more broad concept of a tax credit— credit that could do exactly what Congress is trying to do, which is put more money back into the pockets of individuals and companies, but by putting some money back in their pockets, by giving them an incentive to contribute to organizations that provide scholarships for everything from education to training to workforce development.

Imagine having a scholarship-granting organization that is helping direct people to institutions that are truly embracing and supporting their needs. That would help develop not only a marketplace for really good ideas and new institutions, but it would reinforce this notion that people should be looking for the best offerings for their kids which allows them to truly fit their school to their students as opposed to their students to their school.

We were hoping that would be in the tax bill. It didn't make it, but we still think that tax reform could, in fact, help us spur the creation of new opportunities for learners at all levels.

The Evolution of the New York City Edtech Scene, Empowering Parents and Tax Policy published first on http://ift.tt/2x05DG9

0 notes

nebris · 7 years

Text

The Growing World of Libertarian Transhumanism

Freedom from the government will allow radical science to go on undisturbed.

By Zoltan Istvan August 8, 2017

Transhumanists are curiosity addicts. If it’s new, different, untouched, or even despised, we’re probably interested in it. If it involves a revolution or a possible paradigm shift in human experience, you have our full attention. We are obsessed with the mysteries of existence, and we spend our time using the scientific method to explore anything we can find about the evolving universe and our tiny place in it.

Obsessive curiosity is a strange bedfellow. It stems from a profound sense of wanting something better in life—of not being satisfied. It makes one search, ponder, and strive for just about everything and anything that might improve existence. In the 21st century, that leads one right into transhumanism. That’s where I’ve landed right now: A journalist and activist in the transhumanist movement. I’m also currently a Libertarian candidate for California Governor. I advocate for science and tech-themed policies that give everyone the opportunity to live indefinitely in perfect health and freedom.

Politics aside, transhumanism is the international movement of using science and technology to radically change the human being and experience. Its primary goal is to deliver and embrace a utopian techno-optimistic world—a world that consists of biohackers, cyborgists, roboticists, life extension advocates, cryonicists, Singularitarians, and other science-devoted people.

Transhumanism was formally started in 1980’s by philosophers in California. For decades it remained low key, mostly discussed in science fiction novels and unknown academic conferences. Lately, however, transhumanism seems to be surging in popularity. What once was a smallish band of fringe people discussing how science and technology can solve all humanity’s problems has now become a burgeoning social mission of millions around the planet.

At the recent FreedomFest, the world’s largest festival on liberty, transhumanism was a theme explored in numerous panels, including some I had the privilege of being on. Libertarian transhumanism is one of the fastest growing segments of the libertarian movement. A top priority for transhumanists is to have freedom from the government so radical science experiments and research can go on undisturbed and unregulated.

So why are so many people jumping on the transhumanist bandwagon? I think it has to do with the mishmash of tech inundating and dominating our daily lives. Everything from our smartphone addictions to flying at 30,000 feet in jet airplanes to Roombas freaking out our pets in our homes. Nothing is like it was for our forbearers. In fact, little is like it was even a generation ago. And the near future will be many times more dramatic: driverless cars, robotic hearts, virtual reality sex, and telepathy via mind-reading headsets. Each of these technologies is already here, and in some cases being marketed to billions of people. The world is shifting under our feet—and libertarian transhumanism is a sure way to navigate the chaos to make sure we arrive at the best future possible.

My interest in transhumanism began over 20 years ago when I was a philosophy and religion student at Columbia University in New York City. We were assigned to read an article on life extension techniques and the strange field of cryonics, where human beings are frozen after they’ve died in hopes of reviving them with better medicine in the future. While I’d read about these ideas in science fiction before, I didn’t realize an entire cottage industry and movement existed in America that is dedicated to warding off death with radical science. It was an epiphany for me, and I knew after finishing that article I was passionately committed to transhumanism and wanted to help it.

However, it wasn’t until I was in the Demilitarized Zone of Vietnam, on assignment for National Geographic Channel as a journalist, that I came to dedicate my life to transhumanism. Walking in the jungle, my guide tackled me and I fell to the ground with my camera. A moment later he pointed at the half-hidden landmine I almost stepped on. I’d been through dozens of dangerous experiences in the over 100 countries I visited during my twenties and early thirties—hunting down wildlife poachers with WildAid, volcano boarding in the South Pacific, and even facing a pirate attack off Yemen on my small sailboat where I hid my girlfriend in the bilge and begged masked men with AK47s not to shoot me. But this experience in Vietnam was the one that forced a U-turn in my life. Looking at the unexploded landmine, I felt like a philosophical explosive had gone off in my head. It was time to directly dedicate my skills and hours to overcoming biological human death.

I returned home to America immediately and plunged into the field of transhumanism, reading everything I could on the topic, talking with people about it, and preparing a plan to contribute to the movement. I also began by writing my libertarian-minded novel The Transhumanist Wager, which went on to become a bestseller in philosophy on Amazon and helped launched my career as a futurist. Of course, a bestseller in philosophy on Amazon doesn’t mean very many sales (there’s been about 50,000 downloads to date), but it did mean that transhumanism was starting to appear alongside the ideas of Plato, Marx, Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, Sam Harris, and other philosophers that inspired people to look outside their scope of experience into the unknown.

And transhumanism is the unknown. Bionic arms, brain implants ectogenesis, artificial intelligence, exoskeleton suits, designer babies, gene editing tech. These technologies are no longer part of some Star Trek sequel, but are already here or being worked on. They will change the world and how we see ourselves as human beings. The conundrum facing society is whether we’re ready for this. Transhumanists say yes. But America may not welcome that.

In fact, the civil rights battle of the century may be looming because of coming transhumanist tech. If conservatives think abortion rights are unethical, how will they feel about scientists who want to genetically combine the best aspects of species, including humans and animals together? And should people be able to marry their sexbots? Will transhumanist Christians try to convert artificial intelligence and lead us to something termed a Jesus Singularity? Should we allow scientists to reverse aging, something researchers have already had success with in mice? Finally, as we become more cyborg-like with artificial hips, cranial implants, and 3D-printed organs, should we rename the human species?

Whether people like it or not, transhumanism has arrived. Not only has it become a leading buzzword for a new generation pondering the significance of merging with machines, but transhumanist-themed columns are appearing in major media. Celebrity conspiracy theorists like Mark Dice and Alex Jones bash it regularly, and even mainstream media heavyweights like John Stossel, Joe Rogan, and Glenn Beck discuss it publicly. Then there’s Google hiring famed inventor Ray Kurzweil as lead engineer to work on artificial intelligence, or J. Craig Venture’s new San Diego-based genome sequencing start-up (co-founded with Peter Diamandis of the X-Prize Foundation and stem cell pioneer Robert Hariri) which already has 70 million dollars in financing.

It’s not just companies either. Recently, the British Parliament approved a procedure to create babies with material from three different parents. Even President Obama, before he left office, jumped in the game by giving DARPA $70 million dollars to develop brain chip technology, part of America’s multi-billion dollar BRAIN Initiative. The future is coming fast, people around the world are realizing, and there’s no denying that the transhumanist age fascinates tens of millions of people as they wonder where the species might go and what health benefits it might mean for society.

At the end of the day, transhumanism is still really focused on one thing: satisfying that essential addiction to curiosity. With science, technology, and a liberty-minded outlook as our tools, the species can seek out and even challenge the very nature of its being and place in the universe. That might mean the end of human death by mid-century if governments allow the science and medicine to develop. It will likely mean the transformation of the species from biological entities into something with much more tech built directly into it. Perhaps most important of all, it will mean we will have the chance to grow and evolve with our families, friends, and loved ones for as long as we like, regardless how weird or wild transhumanist existence becomes.

Zoltan Istvan is the author of The Transhumanist Wager, and a Libertarian candidate for Governor in California.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-growing-world-of-libertarian-transhumanism/

There are a lot of negative comments on this article, so I added my own:

A few simple propositions for those hating upon TH:

~It is fairly certain that unless humans become a space-faring species, we shall go extinct and very possibly in the not too distant future. See Stephen J. Hawking. Elon Musk, et al

~Baseline Humans [that's me and thee, folks] do not do well in space. Not at all. Tends to break our bodies down quite rapidly.

~Only deeply modified Humans, both Genetic and Cybernetic mods, have a real chance to survive and prosper in space.

So, it is pretty much go Transhuman or go Extinct. I know which future has my support.

#The Sisterhood #transhumanism

0 notes

alienation2016-blog · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on Alienation

New Post has been published on https://alienation.biz/with-such-low-interest-rates-what-hope-is-there-for-income-investors/

With Such Low Interest Rates, What Hope Is There For Income Investors?

With the modern-day UK low-interest charge environment, getting first rate earnings from your investments is quite hard and lots of traders have moved into better yielding, more unstable alternatives within the equity and bond markets.

In March 2009, the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) cut its Base Rate to a report low zero.5%. Who might have thought that over two years later, Base Rate could nonetheless be at 0.Five%?

Rates have been pegged at this level because the modern day records show, the United Kingdom economic restoration remains vulnerable. However, inflation is still jogging at four.2%, well above the Bank’s 2% target, and this has an impact on savers, as interest costs are so low.

A pressure institution, Save Our Savers, wrote to the MPC about this, declaring the troubles faced with the aid of savers and those on fixed incomes. It has calculated that “inflation has reduced the actual price of the nation’s cash savings via more than £50 billion during the last twelve months”.

A closing couple of years consequently turned into appropriate information for house owners with mortgages, however a nightmare for savers.

So what can the ones making an investment for income do?

Good income investing is ready structuring your investment portfolio with a mix of property which includes coins, equities, constant interest securities/bonds, collective investments, and assets to generate the highest possible annual profits at the lowest feasible chance. Some advisers speak approximately the four% rule, that is taking 4% from your portfolio every yr, but this technique has critics in addition to advocates.

Instead, in case you are investing for income, your place to begin has to be to establish what level of earnings you really want. You can do this thru a simple coins float calculation, looking at your profits and expenditure, and work from that. Your cash drift position can glaringly change considerably at some stage in your existence so that you will want to review it frequently.

You then want to reflect on consideration on your long term financial goals, as well as your mindset to hazard, plus the want for access to your capital. This will determine which asset instructions are the maximum appropriate in order to spend money on.

If you are seeking to supplement your contemporary profits, cash plus constant hobby securities, together with authorities bonds, corporate bonds, and company bond budget are the obvious beginning factors. With constructing society quotes and coins Isa options looking pretty unappealing, buying company bonds thru a managed collective investment scheme is probably a higher bet.

Another alternative is industrial property. This might provide correct diversification from equities and bonds, with little correlation between the asset instructions, and so may be a useful a part of a balanced portfolio.

Whilst UK property funds have had a difficult time of late, the market appears to have bottomed out and presently business belongings price range have the capability to offer a very good level of income relative to cash.

However, in the cutting-edge market, equities, with high stages of dividend profits, and fairness earnings budget appearance appealing to many. If you are organized to simply accept the volatility of the stock markets, searching at dividend generating equities that provide an attractive, developing profits, plus offer the ability for a lengthy-time period capital boom as properly, might be an excellent option.

The most important difference between equity earnings from dividend producing stocks and maximum different income producing investments, which includes coins, is that your income has the capability to develop, so your investments can maintain in advance of inflation.

Historically, over the long run, equities have tended to upward thrust and feature generally produced better returns than coins or fixed hobby securities. Usually, therefore, the longer your investment timeframe the extra you may invest in boom investments.

However, in case your primary want is for income plus prepared to get entry to on your cash, sticking to cash and glued hobby investments make feel.

There is a big range of income-generating belongings to be had. Choosing the right options for you may rely on your investment targets, some time scale, your tax role plus your mindset to hazard. This is in which you want an expert independent financial recommendation, that will help you outline your economic goals and to select the proper mix of belongings for you. With the proper assistance, a respectable funding profits may additionally no longer be a component of the past!

Creating Stable IRA Income Out Of Your 401k

When you get close to retirement your wishes exchange from saving to needing a strong IRA profits flow. Creating that IRA profits stream is really simple however there are so many alternatives that it is able to be puzzling. Making certain you don’t make any errors within the subsequent three-five years is pivotal in preserving you in retirement. No one wants to go lower back to paintings and in case you set your income circulation up efficiently you may never be one of these people.

Creating a profits flow in retirement is normally performed through taking a percentage of your 401k property. Usually, 4-6% is used to provide earnings. If you have got $2,000,000 saved then four% is $eighty,000 in keeping with yr in money paid to you. The idea is to take any more profits and add them for your principal stability to increase its cost. Then your 4% will become more profits for the following yr, therefore, preserving your money inflation indexed.

A foremost flaw to this plan is that maximum advisors use mutual finances and shares in the portfolio and then sell the property to cover your month-to-month profits wishes. They won’t honestly promote monthly however subsequently they must sell investments to offer earnings. What takes place is the marketplace is down whilst you want cash? Your four% out could without problems turn out to be five or 6% and you’ll be dropping cash.

If this happens inside the first five years of your retirement, you will want to reduce the amount of money you get for the yr or years that the marketplace is down. You may drop lower back to $60,000 in line with year profits for some years or even less might be higher from a recovery standpoint.

Avoid The Problem

Avoiding the problem is as an alternative smooth in case you use a right away annuity for the primary five years of IRA income and then a fixed listed annuity that starts off evolved profits in yr 5. In the primary 5 years, your earnings could be absolutely sorted. You will no longer want to take any withdrawals out of your fundamental asset base and your other monies will grow for 5 years untouched.

Using the instant annuity takes the marketplace out of the play completely. If the market is going down, your earnings will live the equal. If the market is going up, your different investments will develop! It is the best of both worlds.

The 2nd annuity, a fixed listed annuity, will grow as nicely over the 5 years. In year 6, you can turn the earnings alternative on and create every other circulation of income. This annuity could offer IRA income for five-10 years. You best use enough budget from your 401k to provide the exact amount of IRA income which you want. You leave the rest of your money invested in the mutual budget, shares, or different investments.

Create a strong profits stream because of the first step of your 401k to IRA profits plan. That stability will make the transition into retirement extra fun and plenty more secure than the usage of all stock investments. Using this plan, you will never be one of those human beings that have to go back to work years into retirement.

Keith Dennis works completely with small business owners to assist them to create tax-loose income streams for retirement. Business owners are frequently caught inside the tax-deferred funding trap. They get a small smash now after which emerge as paying a great deal higher taxes later because they lose their business deductions. Then on top of that, their earnings are commonly a hundred% taxable!

0 notes