#and issues about the allocation of research and funding and support

[averinthine]

stop calling medical conditions rare when i literally have them

[mariacallous]

The Farm Bill is a critical piece of legislation that reauthorizes the country’s agricultural and nutrition programs about every five years—and the 2024 version is now on legislators’ desks, with some major changes. 

Originally designed to support farmers, the Farm Bill has evolved over time to prioritize nutrition assistance, with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) now comprising 76% of the budget—projected to increase to 84% in the current version. This shift underscores the growing emphasis on addressing food insecurity among low-income Americans, as SNAP currently serves over 42 million individuals, or about 12% of the population.

The 2024 Farm Bill will fund SNAP, agriculture subsidies, and crop insurance through 2029, at a projected cost of $1.5 trillion. However, as the first Farm Bill to exceed $1 trillion, it faces heightened scrutiny as both parties clash over the allocation of funding between SNAP, subsidies, and other key programs.  

The current version of the bill, introduced by the Republican-led House Agriculture Committee, has sparked controversy by proposing a $30 billion cut to SNAP funding over the next decade. This reduction would be achieved by limiting adjustments to the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP)—a low-cost, standardized estimate of the minimum cost of a nutritious diet, used to determine SNAP benefit levels—to inflation rates only.  

The TFP is reevaluated every five years to reflect current food costs. In 2021, the Biden administration reevaluated the TFP to respond to high food costs due to COVID-19 and supply chain issues in the global food industry, resulting in the largest-ever increase in SNAP benefits, totaling $256 billion. Now, Republicans are seeking to restrict future adjustments to reflect only inflation costs, marking the largest SNAP reduction in nearly three decades. But Democrats and researchers argue that such a restriction could have significant impacts on the 42 million SNAP recipients, including 17 million children, 6 million older adults, and 4 million people with disabilities.

Americans face rising food insecurity and barriers in accessing nutritious diets  

The proposed cuts, along with provisions to outsource program operations, could undermine SNAP’s ability to effectively combat food insecurity. This is especially concerning given that food insecurity rates rose to 13.5% of U.S. households in 2023, affecting 18 million families—a statistically significantly increase from 2022, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Food insecurity rates are notably higher for single-parent, female-headed households; Black and Latino or Hispanic households; and households in principal cities and rural areas. In addition, voters are growing increasingly worried about inflation and high food costs, with 70% citing food prices as a major concern. This view is especially pronounced among younger voters, who have been hit hard by a 20% surge in food costs since 2020, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  

In addition to concerns surrounding food insecurity and rising costs, the TFP debate risks being a superficial fix that overlooks deeper, more critical challenges low-income families face in accessing nutritious diets. A USDA study found that 88% of SNAP participants encounter challenges in maintaining a healthy diet, with 61% citing the high cost of healthy foods as a key barrier. Other reasons include a lack of time to prepare meals at home and transportation difficulties in accessing healthy foods.  

Access barriers—combined with broader economic factors such as regional variations in real food prices and other costs of living, shifts in food composition data, changing consumption patterns, and updated dietary guidance—significantly impact low-income households’ ability to maintain affordable, nutritious diets. Addressing such factors is crucial for creating a more sustainable and impactful SNAP program, yet they remain sidelined in favor of quick, inflation-focused approaches that do little to address systemic barriers to healthy food access for vulnerable families.

The proposed $30 billion cut to SNAP funding over the next decade by restricting the USDA’s authority to adjust the TFP beyond inflation rates will have serious and multidimensional challenges for these low-income, food-insecure households. In addition, the bill’s proposal to outsource core SNAP operations to private entities could create complications in the application process and eligibility criteria, while also increasing federal costs by $1 million.  

Notably, the current version of the bill proposes to expand SNAP’s purpose to include the prevention of diet-related chronic diseases. Critics, such as the HEAL (Health, Environment, Agriculture, Labor) Food Alliance, argue that this risks diverting attention away from SNAP’s core mission of reducing food insecurity, and instead shifts the focus to diet-related concerns facing low-income populations. Yet these diet-related concerns are often a result of multifaceted challenges such as stress (or “bandwidth poverty”), food insecurity, and other factors such households face. The current version of the bill also proposes to cut climate-focused conservation efforts introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act. 

Proposed changes to agricultural subsidies have sparked equity concerns 

The proposed Farm Bill aims to reallocate funds by raising price floors for key agricultural commodities such as corn, wheat, and soybeans, while cutting SNAP funding. A large portion of the increased spending is directed toward farm programs and crop insurance—raising concerns about equity and the disproportionate benefits to large, wealthy farms. 

A report from the American Enterprise Institute highlights this disparity, revealing that the top 10% of farms receive 56.4% of all crop insurance subsidies, with the top 5% receiving 36.4%. Since these subsidies are not means-tested—and the level of subsidies is directly proportional to an agri-business’s production levels—the wealthiest and largest businesses capture the most significant share of these benefits. Research from the Environmental Working Group confirms evidence on the concentration of these subsidies toward the wealthiest agri-business owners. They found that between 1995 and 2021, the top 1% of recipients received 27% of the total $478 billion in farm subsidies—underscoring the disproportionate benefits to large-scale, wealthy farmers. Moreover, these subsidies favor a narrow range of commodity crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton, which accumulates benefits to white, wealthy farmers while farmers of color receive little support. This inequitable allocation of resources raises important questions about the Farm Bill’s broader social and economic implications.  

The Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office have proposed reforms to the current inequitable structure of these subsidies. Such reforms have the potential to reduce the fiscal deficit while protecting rights of farmers, ensuring food assistance to low-income populations, and maintaining price levels of key commodities. Reforms include implementing income limits on premium subsidies for wealthy farmers, adjusting compensation for insurance companies to reflect market rates, and reducing taxpayer reimbursements for administrative costs.

SNAP benefits aren’t keeping up with the true costs of a healthy diet 

A critical aspect of SNAP that is often overlooked in fiscal policy debates is the economic adequacy of the program’s benefits. There is a growing body of research suggesting that SNAP benefits in their current form are insufficient to cover the “real” cost of a healthy diet. 

In other words, the TFP might not truly reflect the real value of food costs low-income households face. The TFP was originally intended to represent the minimum food expenditure basket that would allow low-income households to avoid food insecurity. It is not necessarily based on the most recent scientific methodologies that factor in food prices, accessibility, and dietary needs.  

Recent evaluations have shown that the TFP often underestimates the cost of a nutritious diet, particularly in areas with higher living costs. An Urban Institute study found that despite food price inflation moderating in 2023, SNAP benefits remained inadequate for covering food costs: By the end of 2023, the average modestly priced meal cost $3.37, which was 19% more than the average maximum SNAP benefit of $2.84. Families with zero net income faced a shortfall of $49.29 per month by the end of the year, with urban areas experiencing a 28% gap between meal costs and SNAP benefits, compared to 17% in rural areas. In the five counties with the largest gaps, the shortfall exceeded 70% throughout the year. 

Recent economic research indicates that current SNAP benefits often fall short of covering the actual cost of a low-budget, healthy diet, with significant variations in benefit adequacy across U.S. regions. Researchers have found that these geographic variations in SNAP purchasing power significantly affect welfare outcomes such as child health and food insecurity. Despite deductions for housing and child care, many regions face much higher real costs of food, and SNAP dollars do not go far in such high-cost areas. To ensure equitable support, social scientists have put forth proposals to index SNAP benefits to local area food prices.   

Therefore, the proposed cuts to SNAP funding risk exacerbating systemic and multidimensional challenges low-income populations already face. Concerns about food insecurity and diet-related chronic diseases are symptomatic of deeper systemic challenges related to health insurance access, stress and bandwidth poverty, access to healthy foods, the higher cost of healthy foods, and structural oligopolies in the American food industry. Research suggests that SNAP inadequacy is linked to worse health outcomes, such as increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Yet instead of focusing on deeper systemic issues, the current Farm Bill proposes a quick fix, Band-Aid solution by proposing to cut SNAP funding further.

Policy recommendations for a stronger Farm Bill 

Despite proposing massive cuts to SNAP, increasing inequitable farm subsidies, and cutting climate funding for conservation efforts, the 2024 Farm Bill does lay out some positive measures. These include raising the income cutoff for SNAP eligibility (the Earned Income Deduction) from 20% to 22% of income, which will ensure more households just at the margin of earned income now have access to SNAP benefits. It proposes to give benefits access to individuals with drug-related convictions, who were previously excluded. Further, it proposes to extend the age limit for high school students on SNAP from 18 to 22 years, allowing students to work without disincentivizing income for eligibility. However, despite these positives, the proposed cuts and other changes could undermine the Farm Bill’s effectiveness in addressing food insecurity and equity concerns in agricultural subsidies.  

The proposed cuts based on restricting SNAP increases to only reflect inflation diverge significantly from academic research underscoring that the TFP should be updated regularly to factor in food prices, consumption patterns, and nutritional guidelines. While this measure could save $29 billion between 2025 and 2033, it will further dampen SNAP’s purchasing power as food costs continue to rise and vary across regions. 

The polarization of the Farm Bill reflects a broader ideological divide over the role of welfare in American society. Republicans have historically advocated for limited assistance and stricter work requirements for SNAP recipients. In contrast, Democrats have historically perceived welfare programs such as SNAP as essential tools for reducing poverty and inequality, and advocated for expanded benefits and more coverage.  

Politicians need to look beyond this ideological gap and focus instead on creating a more equitable and effective Farm Bill that addresses society’s economic and welfare needs. A zero-sum approach that pits agricultural interests against the needs of food-insecure, low-income consumers is not proving to be effective.  

What follows are key policy recommendations for crafting an inclusive and equitable Farm Bill that addresses the economic and welfare needs of vulnerable populations, including low-income households and underrepresented farmers. 

Evidence-based SNAP adjustments: Use scientific methodologies to measure the TFP’s adequacy and issue frequent and regular updates to SNAP benefits. Factors that impact the TFP beyond inflation include other costs of living, regional variations in SNAP adequacy, food consumption patterns, and healthy diet guidelines. 

Index benefits to reflect local economic conditions: Implement regional cost-of-living adjustments to SNAP benefits, which can address disparities in food costs and improve equity across geographic regions.  

Expand access to healthy foods: Invest in initiatives that improve access to healthier food options, such as affordable farmers markets, community gardens, and incentives for retailers in underserved areas to improve food access and support local economies.  

Rebalance agricultural subsidies: Impose income limits on farm subsidies and expand efforts to improve subsidy access for small-scale and BIPOC farmers.   

Integrate climate goals: Allocate funding for climate-resilient agricultural practices and provide financial assistance and incentives to small-scale and BIPOC farmers to invest in such technologies.  

Foster bipartisan collaboration: Encourage cooperation across party lines to create a Farm Bill that balances agricultural support with food assistance—recognizing their interdependence rather than treating them as competing interests. 

Engage stakeholders: Involve farmers, nutrition advocates, and SNAP recipients in the legislative process to ensure policies reflect the needs and realities of those directly impacted. 

The 2024 Farm Bill represents a critical opportunity for Congress to craft a more equitable and inclusive policy that addresses the dual needs of supporting agricultural production as well as nutrition assistance. However, as it currently stands, proposals such as the $30 billion cut to SNAP funding, the shift in focus toward preventing diet-related diseases, and the continued expansion of agricultural subsidies that disproportionately benefit white, wealthy farmers and a limited number of commodity crops risk undermining SNAP’s response to food insecurity and worsening inequality in the agriculture sector. 

Policymakers must look beyond zero-sum dynamics that pit agricultural subsidies against nutrition assistance, when the fundamental issues farmers and low-income households face are symptomatic of deeper systemic inequalities in the economic and welfare structures of fiscal policy. Therefore, rather than continuing to concentrate support in the hands of wealthy, large-scale agricultural producers, the Farm Bill should prioritize uplifting smaller, diverse farmers and ensuring low-income households have the resources they need to access nutritious food. Encouraging small-scale and low-income BIPOC farmers to invest in green technology is also essential, as this would foster more sustainable agricultural practices while supporting communities’ economic growth. At the same time, Congress must ensure that commodity prices remain stable and affordable, preventing further economic burdens on consumers. 

An equitable and welfare-focused Farm Bill would embrace a broader vision—one that balances the needs of both rural farming communities and urban, food-insecure families. By aligning agricultural subsidies with sustainable practices and expanding SNAP’s effectiveness, Congress can craft a policy that not only strengthens food security, but also builds a more just, resilient, and environmentally responsible food system for all Americans. 

[magz]

Ending Water Apartheid In Palestine.

Article Date: April 8, 2024.

Article Excerpt:

According to Euro-Med Monitor, those in the Gaza Strip have access to just 1.5 liters of water per person per day for all needs, including drinking, cooking, and personal hygiene. The established international emergency water threshold is 15 liters per person per day—ten times what Gazans have now. At least 20 people have already died of dehydration and malnutrition, a number that will continue to rise as diarrheal disease spreads due to lack of clean water, leaving many unable to retain what few calories they ingest.Despite significant investment in water and wastewater infrastructure in Palestine from institutions like the World Bank and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Palestinian per capita water consumption continues to fall. While the water crisis in Gaza is now catastrophic, the Palestinian struggle to access water long predates the current onslaught and is an issue in the West Bank, too.

[...]

The root cause of Palestine’s water crisis is not a lack of investment but the political reality that Israel, as an occupying power, manages water in a way that denies Palestinians fair access. Experts and rights groups call this “water apartheid.” They say that recent Israeli tactics in Gaza, such as cutting off water to the enclave, are just the latest examples of its weaponization of the vital resource.

“Water apartheid describes a form of segregation that results in unequal access to water, where policies and practices ensure that water resources are disproportionately allocated to privileged groups while marginalized communities face scarcity and denial of access,” explains Saker El Nour, a sociologist and co-founder of Water Justice for Gaza, a collective of researchers and activists that publishes a newsletter on water in Palestine.

[...]

In Gaza, as early as 2017, UNICEF estimated that 96% of the water from the enclave’s sole aquifer was unfit for consumption due to untreated wastewater and seawater pollution. Still, before Israel’s October 2023 invasion, the aquifer provided over 80% of Gaza’s water, with three desalination stations and three pipes from Israeli company Mekorot providing the remainder.

[...]

“There is a segregationist thing of investing in water infrastructure for the settler population, allowing them to dig deeper wells to pull out more water, and constraining the Palestinian population, not letting them invest in improvements in their water infrastructure,” explains Michael Mason, director of the Middle East Center at the London School of Economics.

[...]

“Development aid is just a band-aid put on to make things look good, but it does not necessarily offer a sustainable solution,” she says. “The United Nations or USAID, for example, could spend a hundred million pounds to build a big water treatment plant, but then it gets bombed and that’s it—nothing is protected.”What is needed instead, Zaqout says, is an end to Israel’s control over Palestinian resources and its attacks on infrastructure and autonomy for Palestinian decision-makers to “think about their water needs, design their own infrastructure, and manage and decide on how they want to allocate funds.”

Mason says that the political pressure needed to push governments like those of the United States and the United Kingdom toward withholding support for Israel’s occupation could come from international courts and rights groups. Many of these are already spotlighting Israel’s weaponization of water.

[youroriginalsublimecupcakestuff]

They're some unspoken rules if you want to survive in no longer human corporation either as a client or a worker.

Try to ignore dazai osamu if he flirt with you or try to convince you to do a double suicide with him, all complaint are to be sent to the Dazai Osamu damage control department.

All ex of dazai should not be given access to the buildings and should be personally relocated to the dazai osamu support group by secretary nakahara, head of accounting kunikida doppo is welcome in the meeting, the same could not be said about dazai.

A special fund should be reserved for any damage caused by secretary nakahara chuuya as well as akutagawa ryuunosuke and yosano Akiko.

The lawyer department should be well funded and be contacted should any problem arise especially if it's damage caused by the like of Yosano Akiko or head of science department kajii motojirou.

You should learn to ignore any stalking, i mean lovingly watching over them by higuchi ichiyo or tayama katai toward one of the akutagawa siblings, likewise the inapropriate behavior of the tanizaki siblings should be ignored for the sake of your sanity.

No one should get hurt in front of Yosano Akiko, the company health inspection should be avoided at all cost.

A fund should be allocated for head of research Edogawa Ranpo sweet craving, the room of the research department should be well furnished with various snacks everyday .

You should ignore the scolding by head of accounting kunikida doppo to CEO dazai Osamu when the later is skipping work or doing his usual shenaningan like edogawa ranpo's snack, kunikida doppo stationary should be well furnished a fund have been alocated to this pursharse.

a well trained group of clerc should be assured that kunikida doppo and nakahara chuuya came to their anger management class and do their meditation assignment , another have to be assigned to osamu dazai and akutagawa ryuunosuke as well as others worker who should go to therapy, a fund have been assigned for any mental scarring or others issue caused to the therapist.

Edgar Allan Poe as well of lucy maud Montgomery should be given access to the building, edgar allan poe in particuliar is given access to the research department, any concern with the company the guild should be adressed to them.

Cat are allowed and encouraged in the office, dog however are not much to secretary nakahara disagreement.

No one under any circumstance should flirt or confess to secretary nakahara for the sake of their financial and mental health.

Foods especially beef should be well stocked for intern miyazawa Kenji as well as sweet especially crepe for intern izumi kyouka and chasuke should be served in the company self service for intern nakajima atsushi as well as curry for oda sakunosuke ( warning as his curry is super spicy it's advised that no one else should touch it).

Co Head of the IT department who share this post with rokuzō taguchi , tayama katai should be allowed to work from home if need came to be, he's also allowed to come with his futon yoshiko in the office.

But what baffle the most anyone who heard or come accross the company isn't even the quirks of the workers but that the company still manage to make records profits in only a few years, it managed to be amongst the leading company in japan and worldwhile.

When the company started to be known others company tried to poach the workers especially kunikida doppo who seem to be done with dazai most of the time, the more shocking refusal was by dazai's hyper competent secretary nakahara chuuya, it's a well known fact that dazai and nakahara are rival and can't stand each others but no matter how much you will offer him he will refuse it .

Both founded the company together and are coined as soukoku in the business world a legendary duo but everyone found that it's best for the sake of your safety and braincell to not wonder about their relationship no one know if they're dating or try to murder each others ( everyone choose to ignore dazai talk about nakahara being his dog for life as well as nakahara virulent talk of hatred because you don't kiss someone that you hate seriously chuuya-san.)

One things is sure is that nakahara is either a miracle worker or have serious problem to be able to support and to be with someone like dazai.

[sang8262]

in a yapping mood, and i cant draw well, so here's some *gasp*, self insert-OC related ramblings?!?!?

the elevator pitch summary is:

A fledgling author and researcher who becomes unwittingly enthralled in JP's schemes after visiting Nayshall for a thesis project.

Forced to work for his NGO (and later Neo Shadaloo) as an advisor after showing promise with Psycho Power.

Wrestles with doing the right thing and opposing JP's influence, yet unable to abandon her deeper emotions towards him.

...with more deets below-

I don't even have a proper name for her yet, since I'm bad with that lmao. But I guess as a sorta self insert, they could be Millon.. for now?? Eh I'll figure it out later.

---

The impetus and circumstance for which she meets JP is that,

she's researching Nayshall's rapid devlopment, and the public health problems its facing as a nascent country. Particularly, how the visitors and participants of the Suval'Hal Martial Arts Tournament (SMAT) have access to the best doctors and emergency aid available... yet the greater local population lacking reliable access to affordable health care.

She has the chance to interview and speak with tournament organizer, Johann Petrovich, about the SMAT and current issues. She surprisingly finds him agreeable, polite, and level-headed. Realizing he has a lot of power as the country's policy advisor, she tries to convince him towards implementing healthcare policies that would allocate more resources for those who need it.

Her mistake is trusting JP as someone willing to aid the suffering, someone who wants things to be better for everyone. Once she does though, it's far too late to rid of his clutches on her.

---

I'm imagining she initially is on good terms with him. She respects his investment into developing the country, and even finds his NGO, Terra Network Partners (TNP) potentially a place to work at. Of course, this is before realizing the money laundering and his connections with Shadaloo.

I can see JP convincing her into relying on him and being complicit in his schemes by offering her a stable position within his NGO. Or funding her research and writing. Having the support and endorsement of someone his calibur would be a huge boon to her academic career afterall...

Then, maybe it's either from her own prying, or after a not-so-chance meeting with Kalima and the resistance, but she eventually realizes the kind of person JP is.

By then though, she's far too entangled with JP and his organization to cut ties and escape. In fact, she realizes that her discussions with him have been helping him make more predatory decisions.

---

In a heated revelation of the truth, he might use Psycho Power to fully subdue her: mostly with expectations that she'd not survive it, silencing any incriminating publication about him in the future. And because even if she didn't die, she would now be dependant on him as a mentor, to continue surviving the awful power forced upon her.

Turns out she has a lot of disdain and despair, enough to fuel and sustain Psycho Power. He's not fully interested in helping her per se, but decides she will do less potential harm if kept close under his watch. And so she struggles now, to find a way to escape Shadaloo and quell her bloodlust. But it's not an easy influence to overcome...

---

I mean, it's a self SHIP afterall, so I'm having it be like a development of:

-wow this guy is GREAT, i respect him a lot! he's so kind! we could work together to do a lot of good things :)

-wow nevermind, this guy SUCKS, i have to escape/ stop him!! >:(

-Psycho Power makes it very difficult to think clearly and all my worst emotions are amplified a ton! i am also forced to learn under JP, and work for him, and woah did he always look so handsome :0

Then throw in a healthy amount of manipulation and sweet talking on JP's behalf and poor self insert OC is doomed to tragedy.

---

Design wise, I have no idea!!!! I guess I would make them The Cooler Me, but right now I got nothing. I'll come back to it lmao

[eretzyisrael]

by Stacy Gittleman

Tlaib repeatedly used the term genocide — a term originally coined to describe the murder of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust — when describing the tragic deaths of Gazan civilians. All casualty figures from the now eight-month war come from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health. Leading urban war experts, including West Point’s John Spencer, repeatedly stated that the precautions Israel has taken to prevent civilian harm during this war not only surpasses that of any military in history, including the United States, but also go above and beyond what is required by international law, according to reporting from Tablet magazine.

According to reports from the Israel Defense Forces, 12,000 Hamas terrorists have been killed and most of these are men.

Tlaib also repeatedly delivered a message that providing Israel with military aid takes away from funding social issues that are important to her progressive constituents. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the federal government allocated about 1% of total spending to foreign aid. This is consistent with trends over the past 20 years.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the United States committed over $3.3 billion in foreign assistance to Israel in 2022, with $8.8 million allocated to the country’s economy and the rest toward the Israeli military.

All current military aid to Israel is part of the 10-year, $38 billion Memorandum of Understanding signed with the U.S. in 2016. The MOU supports updating the Israeli aircraft fleet and maintaining the country’s missile defense system. The agreement commits $500 million in missile defense funding and $3.3 billion in other military funding each year from 2019 to 2028.

In February, Congress passed an emergency package of military aid to Israel to the tune of $14 billion. To this, Tlaib decried the decision as “funding genocide.”

To the responses of “shame” from the audience, Tlaib said: “I watched my colleagues, one by one voting yes to send $14 billion to the apartheid regime. All I kept thinking is that the United States is the primary investor and funder of genocide. We are literally co-conspirators.”

Getting it wrong

Of local interest was Tlaib’s misleading claim that there is currently no lead-free drinking water for Detroit’s schoolchildren.

In 2018, lead and copper were detected in water from drinking fountains in many Detroit Public Schools Community District buildings. All drinking fountains were disabled and covered with garbage bags.

In 2019, according to Chalk-beat, over 500 water hydration stations were installed at every district school with built-in filters to purify the water from any lead or copper. The project was made possible by $3 million in donations from companies, foundations, organizations and individual donors. No taxpayer money was on the project.

Additional funding signed into law by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in February 2024 provided $50 million in state funding to install lead-reducing water stations at schools and childcare centers throughout the state.

All state public schools and childcare centers must test their drinking water every two years, according to the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy.

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

I feel like many of the defenders of prostitution don’t actually know/have known women who were/are prostituting themselves or being sold. Someone very close to me was trapped in the cycle and used drugs to cope since she was a young adult, which ultimately killed her. She was robbed of her life at every turn, even from childhood.

Ignorance allows people to be blind to the reality of these women and benefit from their struggle. There’s few things more dehumanising than that, imo.

so true! they dont actually do any research into numbers, statistics and patterns, or read between the lines and investigate the factors that push and pull women into prostitution.

they hear „im a prostitute and im against the nordic model“ and leave it at that without asking why. they hear „criminalisation harms prostitutes“ but they dont ask how. this is how we get people who think that full legalisation is the only option without considering the inherent issues with prostitution that cant be regulated away, and without considering that legalisation increases demand which increases harm, and without considering that there are ways to reach and help women under the nordic model if the right measures are implemented.

instead of advocating for the government to allocate funds on institutions, social workers, coaches, psychologists, etc who support prostituted women under the criminalisation of sex buyers they choose an easy and superficial „fix“ through the legal system while simultaneously claiming that the nordic model fails precisely because its a legal measure. they say „the nordic model doesnt fix the issues“ but they dont advocate for further changes such as the change of immigration law and enhancement of protection for single mothers.

then they scream bodily autonomy which is also stupid because bodily autonomy stops when someone else is doing the harm, in this case the sex buyer.

its all superficial but thats what liberalism is: it starts and ends at the individual. ironically then they dismiss every individual (ex) prostitute who is against prostitution because „your experiences are not universal“ - okay but consider that paying for sexual consent is universally detrimental to sex positivity and womens rights in a patriarchal world.

im so sorry to hear about your friend, may she rest in peace!

[beardedmrbean]

Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser distributed thousands of dollars to low-income moms with no strings attached as part of an "equitable economic recovery strategy" to offset the costs of childcare. In at least one case, the taxpayer dollars were used to fund a lavish trip to Miami. 

The direct cash payments were part of a pilot program to determine whether the flush of cash could demonstrate "economic improvements among participants." "Additional cash has allowed women to achieve further financial stability, financial security, food security, and health insurance coverage," Bowser's office had claimed.

But an economic policy expert told Fox News Digital the policies were a misdirection of funds that should otherwise be used for public safety and education. 

All 132 mothers who participated in the program were able to choose whether to receive monthly payments of $900 or to get $10,800 in a lump sum, which was "a unique feature of D.C.’s pilot," according to The Washington Post. 

"Quite often these handouts actually trap people in a cycle of poverty," Joel Griffith, an economic research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital. "This is not helping people build long-term wealth and to have long-term economic prosperity."

One recipient – Canethia Miller – told The Post that she took the money and spent most of it on a lavish trip to Miami. 

"Some of it I just left alone. The other side is, I wanted to blow it. I wanted to have fun," Miller said. "[My kids] got to experience something I would never have been able to do if I didn’t have that money."

Miller blew it on a "five-day, $6,000 trip to Miami," which included "a boat tour [that] exposed them to million-dollar homes and luxury yachts." 

"In what she called a rare moment of self-indulgence, Miller spent $180 ahead of the vacation to get her own hair and nails done," The Post reported. She also took her kids shopping and got them new outfits and toys for the trip.

Griffith said that the D.C. mayor would have been better off spending money on reducing crime.

"Spending money on what effectively is a lotto for city residents is the wrong thing to be doing. I think what parents want, whether single moms, single dads or married couples, is a safe city," he added. "What the mayor could do is take these resources that they're going to be distributing randomly to single moms. And you could hire, by my calculations, 25 full-time police officers. That would go a long way in some of these neighborhoods where you can't even walk safely at night." 

In January 2022, Democratic Mayor Bowser allocated $1.5 million to a direct cash transfer pilot program called "Strong Families, Strong Future DC" that was intended "to support maternal health and advance economic mobility." 

"This program is about supporting new and expectant moms with cash so that they can have the autonomy and flexibility to make the best choices for them and their baby," Bowser said. 

The Strong Families, Strong Future DC pilot was at "the heart of our equitable economic recovery strategy," Bowser added.

But some of the issues arose when the mothers were uncertain about how to spend the cash.

Building generational wealth generally requires a solid educational background, which in D.C. is lackluster, Griffith said. 

"[As a resident of D.C.], you're likely to graduate with a subpar education. And we're talking about sometimes an inability to do basic math and basic reading comprehension. And those are the core skills that in a work ethic that allow people to succeed in this country, even if they don't come from a wealthy family," he added. 

Miller seemed to share a similar sentiment when she told The Post, "A lot of communities in my area don’t know the financial gain of credit, saving for your kids; that’s why we’re broke, that’s why we don’t have nothing to pass down or no house to give down. I’m trying to get to the level where I’m passing something down that really matters, so I can be set and my kids can be set, and they don’t need to push so hard like I’m doing now."

Altogether, Miller saved $50 from the program.

"She opened up a savings account, aiming to keep at least $50 in it. She used the remaining $4,000 or so from the pilot in a matter of months, mostly on bills and a used car," The Washington Post reported.

[weather-usa]

Texas requires funding to ensure continuous electricity supply during severe weather conditions. As a result, it is allocating more resources to support fossil fuels.

Ensuring continuous electricity can mean the difference between life and death, a reality underscored this week in Houston. As temperatures soared, hundreds of thousands endured brutal heat without air conditioning.

The city faced consecutive severe storms: first, a powerful derecho in May shattered skyscraper windows and plunged downtown Houston into darkness. Then, an early-season Category 1 hurricane, Beryl, knocked out power for over 2 million customers.

See more:

Texas's electric grid struggles to keep pace. Downed trees and strong winds toppled local power lines, and the May derecho even twisted massive transmission towers into mangled metal. Despite these challenges, instead of bolstering grid resilience to maintain lights and A/C during increasingly extreme weather, Texas is investing billions in new natural gas-fired power plants.

Doug Lewin, a Texas energy expert, acknowledges the necessity of adding electricity capacity due to rising demand. However, flooding the grid with fossil fuels won't fortify power lines against severe storms. "Large-scale gas generation offers no help in hurricane scenarios," Lewin explained to CNN. "The issue lies with transmission capacity. Having surplus power means nothing if it can't reach those in need."

This push for natural gas plants follows the devastating February 2021 deep freeze that claimed over 200 lives and left millions without power or heat. Despite political rhetoric against wind energy, it was natural gas plant failures that caused most outages.

Recent mass outages, including those from downed lines, highlight vulnerabilities. "The weak link has always been the wires and poles," noted Michael Webber, an energy expert at the University of Texas at Austin. "Yet, the state prioritizes natural gas power over grid hardening."

Just months before Beryl struck, Houston's Centerpoint Energy projected needing $2 billion to weatherproof its system against worsening weather extremes. Since 2015, the city has weathered multiple hurricanes, tropical storms, and other severe weather events, stressing its infrastructure.

Weather Forecast For 05446 - Colchester VT:

Joshua Rhodes, an energy research scientist at UT Austin, pointed out the cumulative toll on aging infrastructure from successive storms. "This region has endured three major events recently," Rhodes said. "Each storm leaves its mark, potentially compromising infrastructure still recovering from previous hits."

In essence, while Texas faces mounting weather challenges, its focus on natural gas expansion over grid fortification raises concerns about its readiness for future storms and extreme conditions.

According to Rhodes, much of Texas's electrical infrastructure dates back to the 1970s and 1980s, a time when weather conditions were less severe. A significant portion of the electrical poles are constructed from wood, which becomes increasingly brittle under extreme heat and subsequent flooding. With Texas now experiencing consecutive storms, this infrastructure is showing signs of strain.

"It's not surprising that infrastructure designed for milder weather is failing more frequently," Rhodes noted. Some utilities are beginning to replace wooden poles with stronger fiberglass materials, while others are considering the costly option of burying electrical lines underground.

CNN's conversations with experts highlighted another issue among Texas officials: a reluctance to acknowledge the significant impact of a warming climate on intensifying storms.

State authorities have mandated that utilities like Centerpoint draft weather resilience plans but have provided limited financial support to implement these improvements.

Climate and Average Weather Year Round in 44067-Northfield-OH:

https://www.behance.net/gallery/200370647/Weather-Forecast-For-44067-Northfield-OH

"Since Texas's political leadership does not acknowledge climate change, utilities can discuss extreme weather events but cannot explicitly tie them to climate change or outline proactive measures," explained Alison Silverstein, an independent energy consultant in Texas. "Addressing these challenges requires substantial investment, ultimately funded by customers."

Lewin emphasized one potential solution: microgrids powered by a combination of solar energy and natural gas. These smaller, independent power networks can supply critical facilities such as nursing homes and hospitals during major events like hurricanes.

Despite being allocated over $1 billion alongside funding for natural gas plants, Lewin highlighted that these funds have remained untapped at the Texas Public Service Commission.

"We must ensure that vulnerable populations, like elderly individuals during extreme heat, have continuous access to power," Lewin stressed. "This is non-negotiable. Anything less than complete reliability is unacceptable."

See more:

https://weatherusa.app/zip-code/weather-80013

https://weatherusa.app/zip-code/weather-80014

https://weatherusa.app/zip-code/weather-80015

https://weatherusa.app/zip-code/weather-80016

https://weatherusa.app/zip-code/weather-80017

[rollercoasterwords]

coed schooling or activities are actually often detrimental to girls, forcing them into support roles for their male peers. you can idealize that everyone is hurt under gender and patriarchy, but they are not hurt equally.

i'm assuming this is in response to the tags on the question i answered about girl scouts/girl guides? because other than that post i have not talked about sex-segregated schooling at all on this blog as far as i'm aware lol. but sure, whatever, let's get into it

coed schooling or activities are actually often detrimental to girls, forcing them into support roles for their male peers

right off the bat, if this is something you wanted to have a real conversation about, i'd ask you to refine what you're referring to--"or activities" is an incredibly broad category. are we talking about coed sports teams? summer camps? playdates? choirs? i'd probably have different thoughts depending on how you refine this category, so i'm going to table that part of your ask right now and focus only on schooling in my response.

the idea that girls perform better in sex-segregated schools is something i've heard before. but the actual research, as far as i'm aware, is inconclusive. here's an aclu article giving a brief overview of the disagreement within the research. i don't personally have the time to undertake a literature review of the field just to answer a tumblr ask, but one thing i'd say it's important to be aware of--in studies making this claim, what is their sample size? how are they measuring "achievement"? and, importantly, what other factors could be influencing their results? it's impossible to have two schools that are completely identical in every way except sex segregation, so we need to look at possible mitigating variables. is the sex-segregated school being studied a private school in a wealthier area? are the class sizes smaller? are the teaching methods different? do the students have more stable home lives? considering that there will always be these other variables to take into consideration, i'm not particularly compelled by any study making a sweeping claim that girls will always do better in sex-segregated environments, especially considering the conflicting research that already exists on the subject.

that being said, i do think it's important to discuss how sexism pervades school environments and how socializing children to fit certain gender roles from a young age impacts the ways they interact with each other. but even to the extent that young girls feel pressured to take on a "support role," i don't think segregating schools based on sex is a particularly useful solution. it may treat some of the symptoms of sexism, sure, but it doesn't treat the underlying cause: the gender roles these children have been socialized to conform to in the first place. (also, like--if the solution here is "all schools should be sex-segregated," do you honestly think that would result in an equitable allocation of resources amongst those sex-segregated schools?) personally, i think it would be more useful in most cases to actively work with kids to break those gender roles, rather than dividing them into "boys" and "girls" in a way that reifies the idea that such roles are inescapable. additionally, there are plenty of other factors that could be affecting girl's educational achievement that wouldn't be addressed simply by removing boys from the equation; things like how much funding their schools get, the size of classes, the teaching methods, etc. i don't think sex-segregation is a particularly wholistic approach to addressing this issue. not to mention the ways in which it fails to account for trans and intersex children.

you can idealize that everyone is hurt under gender and patriarchy, but they are not hurt equally

i'm not sure how intentional your word choice is here, but i'm not "idealizing" anything. saying that everyone is harmed by gender essentialism and patriarchy is a statement of fact. i have never argued that that harm is "equal," so i'm really not sure where you're getting that impression from; i think i'm usually pretty intentional about focusing on the fact that material harm varies under patriarchy and that different people will have varying investment and gain varying power from the institution. in fact, it's because this harm varies so greatly that i tend to be wary of sweeping generalizations about what all girls/all women/etc will experience under patriarchy--i think when we make those kinds of generalizations, we tend to end up privileging one certain kind of experience, and that one certain kind usually tends to be white, wealthy, cis, etc.

at the end of the day, when it comes to addressing problems with sexism, i think that any solution which reifies gender essentialism will not lead to liberation. that is a pretty fundamental stance to everything i talk about on this blog, and if that's something you're in absolute disagreement with then you probably shouldn't be here.

[nirmala7210]

Charity Donations: Transforming Lives and Communities

Charity donations, also known as philanthropic contributions, are voluntary acts of giving that aim to support a cause or organization deemed worthy of assistance. These donations can be in the form of money, goods, or services, and they play a vital role in addressing societal challenges, promoting social justice, and empowering individuals and communities.

The Significance of Charity Donations

In a world grappling with complex issues ranging from poverty and hunger to environmental degradation and healthcare disparities, charity donations stand as a beacon of hope, providing a means to alleviate suffering, promote sustainable development, and foster a more equitable society.

Charitable giving extends far beyond the immediate impact on beneficiaries. It serves as a catalyst for positive change, inspiring individuals and organizations to collaborate in addressing critical societal issues. The collective power of charity donations can drive innovation, mobilize resources, and amplify the voices of marginalized communities.

The Impact of Charity Donations

Across diverse sectors and causes, online donations have a profound impact on lives and communities. Here are a few examples:

Education: Charity donations support educational initiatives, providing scholarships, funding teacher training, and expanding access to quality education for underprivileged children.

Healthcare: Donations fund medical research, support healthcare infrastructure, and enable access to essential healthcare services for those in need.

Environmental Protection: Charitable contributions support conservation efforts, promote sustainable practices, and raise awareness about environmental issues.

Disaster Relief: Donations provide immediate assistance to communities affected by natural disasters, offering food, shelter, and medical aid.

Social Welfare: Charity donations support organizations working to combat poverty, provide food assistance, and promote social welfare programs.

Types of Charity Donations

Charity donations can be made in various forms, each with its own advantages and considerations:

Monetary Donations: The most common form of charitable giving, monetary donations provide organizations with the flexibility to allocate funds to their most pressing needs. Online donation platforms have made it easier than ever to make secure and convenient monetary donations to a wide range of causes.

In-Kind Donations: Donations of goods, such as food, clothing, and medical supplies, can provide direct and tangible support to those in need. In-kind donations require careful coordination and logistics to ensure they reach intended beneficiaries effectively.

Volunteerism: Volunteering time and skills is a valuable form of charity donation, providing organizations with human resources and expertise. Volunteer opportunities exist in diverse areas, from mentoring and tutoring to fundraising and event management.

80G Tax Benefits in India

In India, charity donations are recognized for their positive impact on society and are encouraged through tax incentives. Donations made to specified charitable organizations are eligible for tax deductions under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act.

80G deductions reduce an individual's taxable income, thereby lowering their tax liability. This tax benefit serves as an incentive for individuals to contribute to charitable causes, supporting social development and empowering organizations to make a difference.

Making a Difference Through Charity Donations

Every act of charity, no matter the size, contributes to a larger movement of compassion and collective action. Individuals and organizations can make a difference by:

Choosing Reputable Charities: Researching and selecting reputable charities with a clear mission, transparent operations, and demonstrated impact.

Donating What You Can: Contributing what is financially feasible, whether it's a small monthly donation or a one-time gift.

Spreading Awareness: Encouraging others to donate and support causes they care about, amplifying the impact of charity.

Volunteering Time and Skills: Sharing time and expertise to support organizations directly, making a personal contribution to the cause.

Conclusion

Charity donations, in their diverse forms, are a powerful tool for positive change. By supporting worthy causes, individuals and organizations can contribute to a more just, equitable, and sustainable world. The act of giving, whether through monetary contributions, in-kind donations, or volunteering, is a testament to the inherent compassion and collective spirit that drives positive transformation. As we navigate the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century, online donations will continue to play a pivotal role in shaping a brighter future for all.

[autism-unfiltered]

Understanding the Controversy Surrounding Autism Speaks

Autism Speaks is one of the most well-known autism organizations globally, but it has been surrounded by controversy and criticism from the autism community itself. It's important to shed light on these issues and understand why some people within the autism community have voiced concerns about this organization. Here's why:

Lack of Autistic Representation

One of the most significant criticisms of Autism Speaks is the lack of representation of individuals with autism on their board and in their leadership. It's often pointed out that an organization advocating for individuals with autism should be led by, or at least include, people with autism themselves. This lack of representation can lead to a skewed perspective and potentially harmful initiatives.

Negative Portrayal of Autism

Critics argue that Autism Speaks often portrays autism as a tragedy or a burden on families. Many within the autism community argue that this narrative is harmful and fails to acknowledge the full experiences of people with autism. Autism is not a disease to be cured, but a different way of experiencing the world.

Lack of Support for Autistic Adults

Autism Speaks has been criticized for focusing primarily on children with autism, while largely ignoring the needs of autistic adults. Autism is a lifelong condition, and adults on the spectrum also require support and resources.

Funding Allocation

There is also concern about how Autism Speaks allocates its funds. Critics note that a relatively small proportion of their budget goes directly to services for people with autism and their families. Instead, a significant portion is directed towards research, a lot of which has been controversial due to its focus on finding a 'cure' or 'prevention' for autism, rather than improving the lives of people currently living with autism.

In conclusion, while Autism Speaks may have helped increase general awareness of autism, it's crucial to listen to the voices of those it claims to represent - autistic individuals themselves. These concerns about representation, portrayal of autism, support across the lifespan, and funding allocation indicate the need for a shift in how we advocate for and support individuals with autism. Autism advocacy must be inclusive, respectful, and centered around the voices of autistic individuals themselves. Let's ensure we listen, learn, and uplift these voices in our advocacy efforts.

[mariacallous]

The federal government is reconsidering how the census collects race and ethnicity information from U.S. residents. While this might not capture many national headlines, it is an important process that many social science researchers—including education researchers—are paying close attention to. This is because decisions over how we collect race/ethnicity data are both highly consequential and inherently subjective. These decisions have direct implications for the allocation of public resources and shape how we understand what is happening in U.S. schools and society. Yet, there is no “correct” set of racial and ethnic categories, which leaves a wide range of outcomes for these decision-making processes.

In this piece, I describe how the process for identifying race/ethnicity categories works, why it matters, and what I believe the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should ultimately recommend to the U.S. Census Bureau to ensure that this revision process is a success.

The federal government takes another look at racial/ethnic categories

Race and ethnicity are sociopolitical constructs, with categories that are not natural, neutral, given, or static. As such, the process of choosing categories should mirror how we as individuals and as a society change over time. However, OMB and the U.S. Census Bureau have only occasionally taken up the issue (i.e., in 1977 and 1997). As a result, the current categories are outdated and not reflective of our diverse multiracial society.

How the census collects race/ethnicity data sets the precedent for all state and local agencies to follow. School districts, for example, are required by the U.S. Department of Education to collect race data using categories that closely align with those used in the census: Hispanic, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, white, and two or more races. In education, the decision to use these broad racial categories limits our ability to identify unmet needs, ensure services are accessible to all racial/ethnic groups, improve access to services, and advocate for an adequate and fair distribution of resources and funding. Although agencies can take initiative and gather their own more nuanced racial/ethnic data—as the Portland Public Schools and Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction have done—these agencies have been the exception, not the norm.

As a first step, OMB convened a Federal Interagency Technical Working Group on Race and Ethnicity Standards, consisting of 14 principal statistical agencies and 25 other federal agencies. It held virtual public listening sessions beginning in late 2022 (which I participated in). Those conversations informed the Working Group’s suggestions for how the census should revamp its collection of race/ethnicity data. The Working Group has suggested changes that are aligned with our changing society. For example, they proposed eliminating the use of the terms “majority” and “minority,” removing “Negro” from the Black or African American description, replacing “Far East” with “East Asian,” and removing “Other” from “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander.”

What’s missing from OMB’s race/ethnicity data collection recommendations

I support OMB’s recommendations. If these changes are implemented, they would create a new status quo in how government agencies approach racial/ethnic data collection. I also have thoughts on how we could further improve our processes for collecting these data:

First, race and ethnicity should be merged into one question allowing individuals to mark all that apply: “What is your race or ethnicity?” The status quo—with separate questions about race and ethnicity—results in  an estimated undercount of Latinos by five percent and overcounting of white individuals. This is especially concerning for school districts or state departments of education using this approach, given that Latinos represent 14.1 million K-12 students (or 28% of the public school population). A five percent undercount translates to hundreds of thousands of students potentially being misidentified. It’s important to note that two-thirds of Latinos consider “Latino” to be their race. Despite the fact that concepts of ethnicity and race are sometimes conflated, ethnicity is not the same as race, as it encompasses multiple dimensions, including language, culture, religion, and nationality. Since Latino is not an option for the race question, many feel forced to select “white” even if they do not identify this way and are not offered the privileges of being white in America. For Afro-Latinos, who constitute 12% of the Latino population, having separate questions has allowed them to mark Latino as their ethnicity and Black as their racial identity. The merge option would still allow them to mark both.

Second, the federal government should also consider collecting disaggregated race/ethnicity data. This would mean adding follow-up questions to the merged race/ethnicity question to allow respondents to provide more detailed data on how they self-identify. That is, after asking a merged race/ethnicity question, a follow-up question with additional subcategories would appear. The OMB working group has already proposed something along these lines—suggesting that the census also collect information on countries of origin as subcategories for each racial group (See Figure 1 below).

Collecting disaggregated data upfront would allow analysts to use aggregated data, if needed, but also examine subcategories to identity patterns or needs that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. For example, the Asian community is often treated as a monolith, but when examined further, Southeast Asians are dropping out from high school at higher rates and enrolling in college at lower rates compared to South and East Asians. The same data also defies the myth that Latinos are one big group, similarly, showing Central American students dropping out of high school at higher rates and enrolling in college at lower rates compared to other Latino subgroups. Our awareness of, and response to, these patterns require a nuanced understanding of them.

A potential approach to pilot would add an additional layer by asking for subcategories by region first, followed by specific countries of origin. For analysts and researchers disaggregating data, this option may prove useful since sample sizes may become too small for any meaningful disaggregation by country. For example, after selecting “Latinos,” there could be a drop-down list that could include the following subcategories: Puerto Rican, Mexican, Central American, Caribbean American, South American, Spanish, and/or Afro-Latino, followed by subgroup questions of countries of origin. Adding the Afro-Latino option under the Latino and Black subcategory is important to ensure that individuals who are Latino are still prompted to elect their Black identity (a concern expressed in the OMB listening sessions).

Third, for collecting data on Indigenous peoples, the options in the census form in Figure 1 should be guided by direct consultations with Native nations. The U.S. government has not collected Indigenous data accurately for centuries, leading to undercounting Native people and a way of seeing Indigenous communities through a deficit lens (e.g., using “Indian” until 1950). Here, it is important to note that the census relies on individuals’ self-identification of their racial and ethnic identities, whereas Native nations rely on tribe membership. Put another way, as Native writers have stressed, Native American is not a racial identity but rather a political one. This fundamental difference in identification has led to inaccurate data collection, undercounting, and potentially a masking of inequities.

Advocates and scholars argue for the decolonization of Indigenous data by repositioning the authority back to Indigenous peoples. In education, this means directing resources, data infrastructure, and investment in personnel capacity to tribally controlled schools and to the Bureau of Indian Education to give Native nations Indigenous data sovereignty–the right for each U.S. Native tribe to collect, own, and use its own tribe’s data.

By following these proposed changes, the federal government will set a model for other local government agencies to follow, and lead in a more accurate, nuanced, and respectful collection of data on race and ethnicity. Rather than convening every 30 or so years, OMB and the U.S. Census Bureau should have a standing working group to regularly gather feedback from communities to continuously improve data collection. These efforts will help us understand the inequities in our society, identify solutions to remedy these inequities, and make changes in our policies and institutions to address the effects of systemic racism. While thoughtful data collection is not sufficient for these pursuits, it is certainly necessary—and long overdue.

[random2908]

The thing to bear in mind is that while the NIF isn't any good at making power, it's brilliant at providing a situation close enough to an H bomb going off that you can validate your numerical models against it. It's a greenwashed MIC facility.

This is a take I've occasionally heard before. I have a lot of thoughts about it, and about the slightly tangential issue of funding and intellectual purity.

Yes, you're right. The NIF has been involved in H-bomb stuff in the past and probably will be again in the future. Let's get that out on the table where we can all see it first.

But that doesn't mean that that's what this project is about, necessarily. And even if it is, that doesn't mean that the results are unusable.

Because you'd be hard-pressed to find any physics lab in the entire US that you couldn't call a military-industrial complex facility in some capacity. My doctorate was basic experimental physics, just pushing knowledge forward, trying to get journal publications--typical university stuff. The professor wasn't even a US citizen! And neither were about 1/4 of the students. Nevertheless, the lab was funded by an NSF grant, an Air Force grant, an Army grant, and a Department of Energy grant. That's half military funding. Which of those paid your tuition and stipend depended on which project you were on and whether you were a US citizen, but any one of them might be buying your experimental equipment. For that matter, professors needed to get military money because they were only allowed to have one NSF grant at a time, and one grant can only support about two graduate students--you couldn't even hope to get tenure at an R1 school with only two graduate students.

Hell, my dad's PhD on, like, frog embryology was entirely funded by the Army back in the 1970s/80s. Why? The stated reason was that during the Cold War they had a program to pay for as many US citizens to get PhDs in science and science-adjacent fields as possible, and they couldn't care less what those people were actually researching. Who knows what they actually wanted, although I think they funded my dad before even knowing what he'd be studying. But in any case, there wasn't any obvious military use to my dad's research.

At my last job, the company's revenue came from NSF, various defense agencies, a major private defense contractor, and then maybe like 0.5% our own sales since we were just a startup. In total I think about 80-90% of our revenue came from the Department of Defense, one way or another; we were unambiguously MIC. But we were making safety-testing equipment and communications equipment. Of course the military cares about both those things, but it's not as though we had an exclusivity contract with them, and we were making it with civilian customers in mind.

So, yeah, nearly all science in the US exists within the MIC. And the reason for that is that Congress allocates a hell of a lot more money to the military than to science. The vast, vast majority of science, worldwide, is government-funded, even in private industry. (Maybe this is less true in pharma? I really don't know, but certainly more of it is government-funded than they like to let on.) So, in the US, if you want to do anything science-related--commercial or academic--sooner or later you're going to talking to the military.

But in the end, that means you can't necessarily judge science from where its funding is coming from. When I was getting my PhD, my attitude was, if the Air Force was paying for me and my lab partner to go to school, study basic science, and publish in academic journals--great! That was money they were spending on completely innocent work and the advancement of human knowledge instead of on drones. Congress may have misallocated the money by giving it to the DoD in the first place, but here it is, coming back to entirely civilian endeavors. That's a win, as far as I'm concerned.

It's different at the NIF because they do have a history of genuine weapons research. I absolutely agree with that, you can't say it's a fully innocent project. But given how entangled (no pun intended) literally all physics research is with the MIC--due entirely to Congressional funding priorities--I personally think we should take the win when there are potential civilian applications.

Also, write to Congress about allocating more science funding! Every little bit of extra funding helps in disentangling basic science from the MIC.

[brazenskies]

Why Accounting for Lawyers is Crucial for Legal Practice Success?

Accounting is a critical component of running a successful legal practice. Lawyers must manage client trust accounts, track billable hours, handle payroll, and ensure compliance with tax regulations. Accurate financial management helps law firms maintain profitability, avoid ethical violations, and build client trust. Proper accounting also provides insights into the firm’s financial health, enabling better strategic decisions for growth.  Without efficient accounting, law firms risk cash flow issues, missed billing opportunities, and potential legal penalties. By implementing robust accounting practices or outsourcing to professionals, lawyers can focus on providing exceptional legal services while ensuring their practice remains financially stable and compliant with industry standards.

Understanding the Basics of Accounting for Lawyers  

Accounting for lawyers differs from traditional accounting due to the unique financial and regulatory requirements of legal practices. Lawyers must manage trust accounts, track billable hours, and adhere to client fund handling regulations. Understanding fundamental accounting principles such as double-entry bookkeeping, cash flow management, and financial reporting is essential for maintaining a law firm’s financial health and ensuring compliance.

The Importance of Trust Accounting in Legal Practices  

Trust accounting is a critical component of accounting for lawyers. Law firms are required to maintain client funds in separate trust accounts and manage them with precision. Failure to adhere to trust accounting regulations can lead to penalties and loss of licensure. Proper trust accounting practices include maintaining accurate records, performing regular reconciliations, and ensuring that client funds are never commingled with the firm's operating funds.

Tracking Billable Hours: A Key Aspect of Legal Accounting 

Billable hours form the primary revenue stream for most law firms. Accurate tracking is essential for proper client billing and financial management. Implementing time-tracking software integrated with the firm’s accounting system helps streamline the process. This allows lawyers to record billable hours efficiently, generate invoices accurately, and ensure timely payments, ultimately improving cash flow and profitability.

Tax Considerations for Law Firms: Compliance and Deductions  

Tax compliance is a significant aspect of accounting for lawyers. Law firms must understand their tax obligations, including income taxes, payroll taxes, and self-employment taxes. Proper tax planning can help firms maximize deductions for business expenses such as office rent, legal research tools, and professional development. Working with an accounting professional who specializes in law firm taxes can ensure compliance and optimize the firm’s tax position.

Financial Reporting and Analysis for Legal Practices 

Accurate financial reporting is crucial for assessing a law firm’s performance and making strategic decisions. Key financial reports include profit and loss statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements. Regular analysis of these reports helps lawyers identify trends, evaluate profitability, and make informed decisions about resource allocation, client acquisition, and service offerings.

Choosing the Right Accounting Software for Law Firms

Selecting the right accounting software is vital for efficient financial management. Law firms require software that supports trust accounting, time tracking, invoicing, and financial reporting. Popular legal accounting software solutions like Clio, QuickBooks, and Xero offer specialized features for law firms. Integrating these tools with case management systems can further streamline administrative tasks and improve overall productivity.

The Benefits of Outsourcing Accounting Services for Lawyers

Outsourcing accounting services can be a cost-effective solution for law firms, especially small to mid-sized practices. Professional accountants with legal industry expertise can handle complex financial tasks, ensure compliance, and provide strategic financial advice. Outsourcing allows lawyers to focus on their core legal work while ensuring that their firm’s finances are managed efficiently and accurately.

Conclusion  

Accounting for lawyers is a critical aspect of running a successful legal practice. By understanding trust accounting, tracking billable hours, managing taxes, and leveraging the right accounting tools, law firms can ensure financial stability and compliance. Whether handling accounting in-house or outsourcing to professionals, effective financial management allows lawyers to focus on delivering exceptional legal services while maintaining a profitable and well-organized practice.

[visual-sculptors]

Navigating Challenges: Growth Hurdles for Startup Companies and Solutions

 Startups face numerous challenges including limited resources, market uncertainty, and the need to adapt based on customer feedback. Founders must manage team dynamics, secure funding, and scale operations, which can slow progress. However, these obstacles also present growth opportunities and chance for learning. Entrepreneurs must address challenges like managing cash flow and retaining talent to succeed in the competitive startup environment. This article will discuss common startup challenges and provide strategies to overcome them, offering valuable insights and tools to help entrepreneurs build resilience and achieve long-term success.

Identify market fit early on to avoid wasting resources and time in growing startup companies.

Startups need to find a good market fit to succeed and Growing Startup Companies. By understanding their target audience and validating products/services based on market needs, they can use resources effectively. Early identification of market fit allows adjustment based on customer feedback, reducing risks of wasting time and money on untested ideas. This proactive approach improves product development, increases customer satisfaction and loyalty, and sets a strong foundation for expansion. Failing to identify market fit can waste resources and hinder growth, so thorough market research and ongoing testing are vital for informed choices, innovation, and agility in a competitive environment.

 Build a strong network of mentors to provide guidance and support during challenging growth phases.

Startups can benefit greatly from building a network of mentors to provide guidance, advice, and support. Mentors offer diverse experiences that help entrepreneurs make better decisions and discover new opportunities. They also provide access to resources and connections that can drive growth. Having mentors can help startups refine their strategies, improve operations, and expand their market reach. The support and feedback from mentors can boost confidence and resilience in the face of challenges, ultimately helping startups to succeed in a competitive environment. Prioritizing mentorship is essential for startups looking to thrive and overcome obstacles.

 Prioritize financial management to sustain growth and navigate economic uncertainties for growing startup companies.

Effective financial management is crucial for growing startup companies to thrive and overcome economic challenges. By implementing strong financial practices, startups can monitor cash flow, create budgets, and allocate resources efficiently. This allows them to understand their financial standing and make informed decisions regarding investments, hiring, and growth. By emphasizing careful financial planning, startups can anticipate market changes and adjust swiftly, reducing financial risks. Encouraging a culture of financial discipline helps teams align their objectives with the company's long-term financial goals. Regular financial assessments and transparent reporting improve accountability and prompt proactive responses to financial issues. By staying informed about their financial health, growing startups can seize expansion opportunities while managing risks, ensuring resilience and flexibility in uncertain times.

Startups often face challenges like funding problems and entering new markets. To overcome these issues, they should be innovative and adaptable in their strategies. A strong mindset, agile practices, and customer feedback are essential for success. Seeking guidance from mentors and experts, and prioritizing continuous learning, can help entrepreneurs growing startup companies. With perseverance and the right approach, startups can thrive in a competitive landscape.

Visit: VS Website See: VS Portfolio