#urban agriculture policy

[insightfultake]

Bridging the Rural-Urban Divide: The Key to India’s Future

India stands at a critical crossroads. As one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, it’s often hailed as a rising global power. However, a glaring paradox persists within the country’s development narrative—the stark divide between rural and urban India. While cities like Delhi, Mumbai, and Bengaluru are witnessing rapid modernization, millions of people in rural India continue to struggle with basic amenities, education, and healthcare.

The gap between urban and rural India isn't just economic; it is social, cultural, and infrastructural. Rural India, which houses around 68% of India’s population, is often left behind in the race towards development. This gap is not only a challenge but also a key obstacle to India’s aspirations of becoming a developed nation. Without bridging this divide, India’s economic ambitions will remain incomplete....see more

[mirnaheadlines]

Government Policies for a Green Economy: Incentives and Regulations

Green Economy A successful transition to a green economy requires a combination of public and private sector efforts, Green Economy with governments playing a crucial role in setting the framework for this transformation. Policies often target sectors such as energy, transportation, agriculture, waste management, and construction, which are significant contributors to environmental impacts. In this context, incentives and regulations serve as two sides of the policy coin, ensuring both the encouragement of sustainable practices and the enforcement of environmental protection.

One of the main goals of government policies for a green economy is to shift economic activity toward more sustainable practices. This involves reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting renewable energy, and ensuring that economic growth is decoupled from environmental degradation. To achieve these goals, governments employ a wide range of tools, including tax breaks, subsidies, grants, carbon pricing mechanisms, and strict environmental regulations.

A green economy also emphasizes social inclusiveness, Green Economy ensuring that the transition to sustainability benefits all members of society, particularly vulnerable groups who are most affected by environmental degradation. Green Economy Government policies often include provisions for job creation in green industries, education and training for new skills, and social protection measures to ensure that no one is left behind in the transition.

This section will delve into six key areas of government policies for a green economy: renewable energy incentives, carbon pricing mechanisms, green transportation policies, sustainable agriculture support, waste management and recycling regulations, and financial incentives for green innovation.

Renewable Energy Incentives Green Economy

One of the cornerstones of any green economy policy framework is the promotion of renewable energy sources. Governments have introduced a range of incentives to encourage the production and consumption of renewable energy, such as wind, solar, and hydropower. These incentives are critical for reducing reliance on fossil fuels, which are the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Renewable energy incentives often take the form of subsidies and tax breaks. For instance, many governments offer production tax credits (PTCs) and investment tax credits (ITCs) to companies that generate renewable energy or invest in renewable energy infrastructure. These financial incentives lower the cost of renewable energy projects, making them more competitive with traditional fossil fuel-based energy sources.

Feed-in tariffs (FITs) are another common incentive mechanism. Green Economy Under a FIT program, renewable energy producers are guaranteed a fixed price for the electricity they generate, often over a long-term contract. This provides a stable revenue stream and reduces the financial risk associated with renewable energy investments. Net metering programs, which allow individuals and businesses to sell excess renewable energy back to the grid, are another way governments encourage the adoption of renewable technologies.

Governments also support renewable energy through research and development (R&D) funding. Green Economy By investing in the development of new technologies, governments can help bring down the cost of renewable energy and make it more accessible. Many governments also provide grants and low-interest loans for renewable energy projects, particularly for smaller-scale projects such as rooftop solar installations.

In addition to financial incentives, governments often mandate the use of renewable energy through renewable portfolio standards (RPS). An RPS requires utilities to obtain a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources, creating a guaranteed market for renewable energy. This not only supports the growth of the renewable energy industry but also helps reduce the overall carbon footprint of the energy sector.

Green Economy The combination of financial incentives and regulatory mandates has been instrumental in driving the rapid growth of renewable energy in many parts of the world. Countries such as Germany, Denmark, and China have become global leaders in renewable energy production, thanks in large part to strong government policies that promote green energy development.

Carbon Pricing Mechanisms

Carbon pricing is a critical tool in the fight against climate change and a key component of government policies for a green economy. By putting a price on carbon emissions, governments create an economic incentive for businesses and individuals to reduce their carbon footprint. There are two main types of carbon pricing mechanisms: carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems.

A carbon tax directly sets a price on carbon by levying a tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels. This encourages businesses and consumers to reduce their use of carbon-intensive energy sources and shift toward cleaner alternatives. The revenue generated from carbon taxes is often used to fund green initiatives, such as renewable energy projects or energy efficiency programs, or to provide rebates to low-income households to offset higher energy costs.

Cap-and-trade systems, also known as emissions trading schemes (ETS), work by setting a limit (or cap) on the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions that can be emitted by covered entities, such as power plants or industrial facilities. Companies are issued emission allowances, which they can trade with one another. Companies that can reduce their emissions at a lower cost can sell their excess allowances to companies that face higher costs for reducing emissions. This creates a market for carbon allowances and incentivizes businesses to invest in cleaner technologies.

Both carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems are designed to internalize the environmental cost of carbon emissions, making it more expensive to pollute and more profitable to invest in sustainable practices. These mechanisms can drive innovation, as businesses seek out new technologies and processes to reduce their carbon liabilities.

Several countries and regions have implemented carbon pricing policies with varying degrees of success. The European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is one of the largest and most established cap-and-trade programs in the world. Canada has implemented a nationwide carbon tax, with revenue returned to households through rebates. In the United States, some states, such as California, have implemented their own cap-and-trade programs in the absence of a national carbon pricing policy.

However, carbon pricing mechanisms face challenges, including political opposition and concerns about economic competitiveness. In some cases, businesses argue that carbon pricing increases costs and puts them at a disadvantage compared to competitors in countries without similar policies. To address these concerns, governments often include provisions to protect industries that are vulnerable to international competition, such as offering rebates or exemptions for certain sectors.

Green Transportation Policies

Transportation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in urban areas. To promote a green economy, governments are implementing a range of policies aimed at reducing emissions from the transportation sector. These policies focus on promoting the use of public transportation, encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs), and improving fuel efficiency standards.

One of the most effective ways to reduce transportation emissions is to encourage the use of public transportation. Governments invest in expanding and improving public transit systems, such as buses, trains, and subways, to make them more accessible and attractive to commuters. By providing reliable and affordable public transportation options, governments can reduce the number of cars on the road and lower overall emissions.

In addition to improving public transportation, governments are offering incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles (EVs). These incentives often take the form of tax credits or rebates for EV buyers, which help offset the higher upfront cost of electric vehicles compared to traditional gasoline-powered cars. Some governments also offer additional perks for EV owners, such as access to carpool lanes or free parking in city centers.

Governments are also investing in the infrastructure needed to support electric vehicles, such as building charging stations. A lack of charging infrastructure is often cited as a barrier to EV adoption, so governments play a critical role in addressing this challenge. By providing grants or partnering with private companies, governments can help build a network of charging stations that makes EVs a more convenient option for drivers.

Another important component of green transportation policies is improving fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. Governments set regulations that require automakers to produce vehicles that meet certain fuel efficiency targets, which helps reduce the amount of fuel consumed and the emissions produced by the transportation sector. Some governments also implement vehicle emissions standards, which limit the amount of pollutants that cars and trucks can emit.

In addition to these policies, governments are encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation, such as biking and walking. Investments in bike lanes, pedestrian infrastructure, and bike-sharing programs make it easier for people to choose low-emission forms of transportation. These efforts not only reduce emissions but also improve public health by promoting physical activity.

Sustainable Agriculture Support

Agriculture is both a contributor to and a victim of environmental degradation. It is responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, water use, and pollution from fertilizers and pesticides. At the same time, agriculture is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including more frequent droughts, floods, and changing weather patterns. As a result, governments are increasingly focusing on promoting sustainable agricultural practices as part of their green economy policies.

One of the key ways governments support sustainable agriculture is through financial incentives for farmers who adopt environmentally friendly practices. These incentives can take the form of subsidies, grants, or low-interest loans for practices such as organic farming, agroforestry, and conservation tillage. By providing financial support, governments encourage farmers to invest in sustainable practices that might otherwise be cost-prohibitive.

Governments also provide technical assistance and education to help farmers transition to more sustainable practices. This can include training programs on topics such as water conservation, soil health, and pest management, as well as access to research and technology that supports sustainable farming. Extension services, which provide hands-on assistance to farmers, are another important tool for promoting sustainable agriculture.

In addition to financial and technical support, governments implement regulations to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture. These regulations can include restrictions on the use of certain pesticides and fertilizers, requirements for buffer zones to protect water sources from agricultural runoff, and mandates for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and manure management.

Governments are also working to promote more sustainable food systems by encouraging the consumption of locally produced and organic foods. Public procurement policies, which require government institutions such as schools and hospitals to purchase a certain percentage of their food from sustainable sources, are one way governments support the development of local, sustainable food systems.

Another important aspect of sustainable agriculture policies is protecting biodiversity and promoting ecosystem services. Governments often provide incentives for farmers to preserve natural habitats on their land, such as wetlands, forests, and grasslands, which provide important ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, water filtration, and pollination. By promoting biodiversity and ecosystem health, governments help ensure that agricultural systems are more resilient to environmental changes.

Waste Management and Recycling Regulations

Effective waste management is a critical component of a green economy. Governments play a key role in regulating waste disposal, promoting recycling, and encouraging the reduction of waste generation. These efforts are aimed at reducing the environmental impact of waste, including greenhouse gas emissions from landfills, pollution from improper disposal, and the depletion of natural resources through excessive consumption.

One of the main ways governments regulate waste is by setting standards for waste disposal. This includes regulating landfills, incinerators, and hazardous waste facilities to ensure that they operate in an environmentally responsible manner. Governments also implement bans or restrictions on certain types of waste, such as single-use plastics, to reduce the amount of waste that ends up in landfills or the environment.

In addition to regulating waste disposal, governments are increasingly focusing on promoting recycling and waste reduction. Many governments have implemented extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs, which require manufacturers to take responsibility for the disposal of the products they produce. This can include requirements for companies to fund recycling programs or take back products at the end of their life cycle.

Governments also implement policies to encourage households and businesses to recycle more. This can include providing curbside recycling services, setting recycling targets, and offering incentives for recycling, such as deposit return schemes for beverage containers. Public awareness campaigns and education programs are also important tools for promoting recycling and waste reduction.

In some cases, governments use economic instruments to promote waste reduction, such as charging fees for waste disposal or providing financial incentives for businesses that reduce waste. Pay-as-you-throw programs, which charge households based on the amount of waste they generate, are one example of how governments use pricing mechanisms to encourage waste reduction.

Another important component of waste management policies is promoting the circular economy, which focuses on keeping materials in use for as long as possible through recycling, reusing, and remanufacturing. Governments support the circular economy by providing incentives for businesses that adopt circular practices, such as designing products for durability and recyclability, and by setting targets for reducing waste and increasing recycling rates.

Source :

Government Policies for a Green Economy: Incentives and Regulations

[rodspurethoughts]

Walmart Foundation and LISC launch $1.5M Equitable Food Access Grant Program to Address Food Inequity in Under-Resourced Communities

The Walmart Foundation has partnered with the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) to launch a $1.5 million grant program aimed at expanding access to healthy, affordable food in under-resourced communities. The program, known as the Equitable Food Access grant program, is focused on the Southeast region and will fund eight community-based nonprofits led by people of color. The program…

[apas-95]

Is there a story behind China's one child policy that makes it not as horrifying as western media claims?

The defining feature of China's development for the past 70 years has been the urban-rural divide. In order to develop a semi-feudal country with a very low industrial level into an industrialised, socialist nation, it was necessary to develop industrial centres. To 'organically' develop industrial centres would have taken many decades, if not centuries of continued impoverishment and starvation, so programs were put in place to accelerate the development of industry by preferentially supporting cities.

Programs like the 'urban-rural price scissors' placed price controls on agricultural products, which made food affordable for city-dwellers, at the direct expense of reducing the income of rural, agricultural areas. This hits on the heart of the issue - to preferentially develop industrial centres in order to support the rest of the country, the rest of the country must first take up the burden of supporting those centres. Either some get out of poverty *first*, or nobody gets out of poverty at all. The result being: a divide between urban and rural areas in their quality of life and prospects. In order to keep this system from falling apart, several other policies were needed to support it, such as the Hukou system, which controlled immigration within the country. The Hukou system differentiated between rural and urban residents, and restricted immigration to urban areas - because, given the urban-rural divide, everyone would rather just try to move to the cities, leaving the agricultural industry to collapse. The Hukou system (alongside being a piece in many other problems, like the 'one country two systems', etc) prevented this, and prevented the entire thing from collapsing. The 'one child policy' was another system supporting this mode of development. It applied principally to city-dwellers, to prevent the populations of cities expanding beyond the limited size the agricultural regions could support, and generally had no 'punishments' greater than a lack of government child-support, or even a fine, for those who still wanted additional children. Ethnic minorities, and rural residents, were granted additional children, with rural ethnic minorities getting double. It wasn't something anyone would love, but it served an important purpose.

I use the past-tense, here, because these systems have either already been phased out or are in the process of being phased out. The method of urban-rural price scissors as a method of development ran its course, and, ultimately, was exhausted - the negative aspects, of its underdevelopment of rural regions, began to overwhelm its positive aspects. So, it was replaced with the paradigm of 'Reform and Opening Up' around the 1980s. Urban-rural price scissors were removed (leading to protests by urban workers and intellectuals in the late '80s), and the Hukou system, along with the 'one child policy', were and are being slowly eased out as lessening inequality between the urban and rural areas make them unnecessary. Under the new system, the driver of development was no longer at the expense of rural regions, but was carried out through the internal market and external capital. The development paradigm of Reform and Opening Up worked to resolved some contradictions, in the form of the urban-rural divide, and created some of its own, in the form of internal wealth divisions within the cities. Through it, over 800 million people were lifted out of extreme poverty - almost all of them being in rural areas - and extreme poverty was completely abolished within China. 'Extreme poverty' can be a difficult thing for westerners to grasp, wherein poverty means not paying rent on time, but to illustrate - many of the last holdout regions of extreme poverty were originally guerrilla base areas, impassable regions of mountainside which were long hikes away from schools or hospitals, wherein entire villages were living in conditions not dissimilar to their feudal state a century before. These villages were, when possible, given infrastructure and a meaningful local industry accounting their environment and tradition (like growing a certain type of mountainous fruit), or entirely relocated to free government-built housing lower down the mountain that was theirs to own. These were the people the 'one child policy' was aiding, by reducing the urban population they had to support. Again, there were exemptions for rural and ethnic minority populations to the policy.

Even now, Reform and Opening Up is running its course. Its own negative aspects, such as urban wealth inequality, are beginning to overcome its positive aspects. So, the new paradigm is 'Common Prosperity', which will work to resolve the past system's contradictions, and surely introduce its own contradictions in the form of chafing against the national bourgeoisie, as it increases state control and ownership of industry, and furthers a reintroduced collectivisation. Organising a nation of well over a billion people is not simple. It is not done based on soundbytes and on picking apart policies in the abstract for how 'dystopian' they sound. It is an exceedingly complex and interconnected process based on a dialectical, material analysis of things; not a utopian, idealist one. What matters is this: those 800,000,000 people now freed from absolute poverty. The things necessary to achieve that were, unquestionably, good things - because they achieved that. They had their negative aspects, as does everything that exists, but they were unquestionably correct and progressive things.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Solar farms don’t just have to be about low carbon electricity, they could also help reverse biodiversity decline. Under appropriate management and the right policies, solar farms have the potential to deliver benefits for nature and climate. Our team’s research on solar farms across the UK shows that these energy facilities can boost local pollinator populations and enhance pollination services to adjacent crops. For instance, managing solar farms as wildflower meadows can benefit bumblebee foraging and nesting, while larger solar farms can increase pollinator densities in surrounding landscapes compared to smaller sites managed as turf grass. Solar farms have been found to boost the diversity and abundance of certain plants, invertebrates and birds, compared to that on farmland, if solar panels are integrated with vegetation, even in urban areas. Solar farms can also deliver multiple “ecosystem services” in addition to biodiversity conservation, including food production and support for rural activities such as recreation. Yet, as with any changes, there will be winners and losers. Some species, such as bats, find it harder to forage for insects and travel along protected corridors of habitat due to to the presence of solar farms. The jury is still out on whether solar farms change the soil’s capacity to store carbon. With clearer understanding of how different species respond to the presence of solar farms, the design, location and management of these facilities can be adapted accordingly to benefit nature. Solar farms may challenge some deeply held perceptions in the UK of a cultural “green” countryside dotted with lush farmlands in which wildlife co-exist in apparent harmony with human-dominated land uses. However, centuries of agricultural intensification have pushed several species and habitats to the brink in the UK, a nation that’s been highlighted as one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world.

12 August 2024

[batboyblog]

Things Biden and the Democrats did, this week #18

May 10-17 2024

The Justice Department endorses lifting many restrictions on marijuana. Since the 1970s marijuana has been classified as a Schedule I controlled substance, the most restrictive classification for drugs that are highly addictive, dangerous and have no medical use, like heroin. Schedule I drugs are nearly impossible to get approval for research studies greatly hampering attempts to understand marijuana and any medical benefits it may have. The DoJ recommends moving it to Schedule III, drugs with low risk of abuse like anabolic steroids, and testosterone. This will allow for greater research, likely allow medical marijuana, and make marijuana a much less serious offense. President Biden welcomed DoJ's decision, a result a review of policy he ordered. Biden in his message talked about how he's pardoned everyone convicted of marijuana possession federally. The President repeated a phrase he's said many times "No-one should be in jail just for using or possessing marijuana,"

The Department of Interior announced no new coal mining in America's largest coal producing region. The moratorium on new coal leases has been hailed as the single biggest step so fair toward ending coal in the US. The Powder River Basin area of Wyoming and Montana produces 40% of the nations coal, the whole state of West Virginia is just 14%. The new rule is estimated to reduce emissions by the equivalent of 293 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, the same as taking 63 million gas powered cars off the road.

Vice-President Harris announced that the Biden-Harris Administration had broken records by investing $16 billion in Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Harris, a graduate of Howard University, is the first President or Vice-President to have gone to a HBCU. The Administration's investment of $900 million so far in 2024 brought the total investment of the Biden-Harris administration in HBCUs to $16 billion more than double the record $7 billion. HBCUs produce 40% of black engineers, 50% of black teachers, 70% of black doctors and dentists, and 80% of black judges. HBCUs also have a much better record of helping social mobility and moving people out of generational poverty than other colleges and universities.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development announced $30 billion dollars in renewal funding for the Housing Choice Voucher Program. The program supports 2.3 million families that are in need of housing with vouchers that help pay rent. This funding represents a $2 billion dollar increase over last year.

The Department of Agriculture announced $671.4 million in investments in rural infrastructure. The money will go to project to improve rural electric grids, as well as drinking water and wastewater treatment infrastructure. The money will go to 47 projects across 23 states.

HUD announced a record breaking $1.1 billion dollar investment in Tribal housing and community development. HUD plans just over 1 billion dollars for the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program. This is a 40% increase in funding over 2023 and marks the largest ever funding investment in Indian housing. HUD also is investing $75 million in community development, supporting building and rehabbing community buildings in American Indian and Alaska Native communities.

The Department of Transportation announced $2 billion in investments in America's busiest passenger rail route, the Northeast Corridor between Washington DC and Boston. This is part of a 15 year, $176 billion plan to rebuild the corridor’s infrastructure and prepare for increased ridership and more trains. So far investments have seen a 25% increase, 7 million riders, over figures last year. a fully funded plan would almost double Amtrak service between New York City and Washington, D.C., and increase service between New York City and Boston by 50%. It would also allow a 60% increase in commuter trains.

HUD announced plans to streamline its HOME program. Currently the largest federal program to help build affordable housing, the streamlining of the rules will speed up building and help meet the Biden Administration's goal of 2 million new affordable housing units. HUD announced last week $1.3 billion dollars for the HOME program, which built 13,000 new units of housing in 2023 and helped 13,000 families with rental assistance

The Department of Interior announced $520 million in new water projects to help protect against drought in the western states. The funding will support 57 water related projects across 18 western states. The projects focus on climate resilience and drought prevention, as well as improving aging water delivery systems, and improving hydropower generation.

The Departments of Agriculture and HHS have stepped up efforts to wipe out the H5N1 virus prevent its spread to humans while protecting farmers livelihoods. The virus is currently effecting dairy cattle in the Texas panhandle region. The USDA and HSS are releasing wide ranging funds to help support farms equipping workers with Personal Protective Equipment, covering Veterinary costs, as well as compensating farmers for lost revenue. HHS and the CDC announced $101 million in testing an monitoring. This early detection and action is key to preventing another Covid style pandemic.

The Senate confirmed Sanket Bulsara to a life time federal judgeship in New York and Eric Schulte and Camela Theeler to lifetime federal judgeships in South Dakota. This brings the total number of judges appointed by President Biden to 197. For the first time in history the majority of a President's judicial nominees have not been white men.

Bonus: The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that transgender health insurance exclusions were illegal. The ruling came from a case first filed in 2019 where an employer refused to cover an employee's gender affirming surgery. The court in its ruling sited new guidance from the Biden Administration's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that declared that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects trans people in the work place. These kinds of guidelines are often sited in court and carry great weight.

[girlactionfigure]

🧵𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝: 𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐖𝐞𝐥𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐀𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐭? 𝐒𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐭: 𝐈𝐭 𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐬.

Enough is enough, Let’s set the record straight: the claim that Arabs welcomed Jews to Israel after the Holocaust is a false narrative and just a lie. The reality is that it's a much more complex and challenging history. Here’s a comprehensive look at the real dynamics of Jewish immigration and the reception in Israel.

1/ An Ancient Bond: Jews and the Land of Israel.

Let me first say that The idea that Jews arrived in Israel only as Holocaust refugees disregards their ancient and continuous connection to the land. Jews have maintained a consistent presence in Israel for thousands of years, documented in ancient texts and archaeological findings. Cities like  Jerusalem, Hebron, and  Safed were significant centers of Jewish life long before the 20th century. This deep-rooted connection shows the significance of Israel to the Jewish people throughout history.

2/ The status of Israel in the 1880s

By the 1880s, when the First Aliyah began, Israel was largely neglected and in disrepair. The region suffered from economic stagnation, sparse infrastructure, and minimal habitation. Many areas were desolate, with abandoned villages and a general lack of modern amenities. Public health conditions were dire, with widespread malaria and typhoid fever, and there was a severe shortage of medical facilities and basic health care. The land had been left in a state of neglect by previous rulers and local inhabitants, who had not invested in its development.

3/ The Transformation by Jewish Immigration.

Jewish immigrants arriving in the 1880s faced severe conditions but undertook significant efforts to transform the land. They joined the local Jewish community and they established agricultural settlements, drained swamps, and developed irrigation systems, turning barren land into productive farmland. New towns and cities emerged, such as Tel Aviv, which started as a small neighborhood and grew into a bustling urban center. Their work laid the foundation for the modern state of Israel, significantly enhancing living conditions and infrastructure.

4/ Hostility from Local Arab Populations.

Despite the historical presence of Jews, the arrival of Jewish immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was met with increasing hostility from local Arabs. Many of these Arabs, who began migrating to Israel around the same time as the First Aliyah, viewed the Jewish newcomers with growing animosity. This hostility manifested in violent confrontations and revolts, such as the 1929 Hebron massacre, where 67 Jews were killed, and the Arab revolt from 1936 to 1939, which targeted Jewish settlements and British authorities. This resistance reflects the significant opposition Jews faced, contrary to claims of a warm welcome.

5/ The Arab Mufti’s Alliance with Nazi Germany.

The situation grew more complex during World War II. Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of  Jerusalem, sought an alliance with Nazi Germany. In 1941, he met with Adolf Hitler, offering support for the Nazi regime and advocating for anti-Jewish policies in Palestine. This collaboration proves again the intense hostility Arab leaders had towards Jews and their aspirations, complicating the notion of Arab support for Jewish migration.

6/ The Efforts of Local Jews to Aid Holocaust Survivors

In stark contrast to the hostility faced, local Jewish communities in Palestine went to extraordinary lengths to assist Holocaust survivors. As the horrors of the Holocaust became known, Jewish organizations in Israel, including the Jewish Agency and various relief committees, worked tirelessly to find refuge for survivors. They orchestrated complicated immigration operations, known as Aliyah Bet, to bypass British restrictions and bring Jews to Israel. The efforts of these local Jewish organizations were instrumental in providing sanctuary and rebuilding lives.

7/ The Birth of modern Israel and the 1948 War.

The Holocaust heightened the urgency for a Jewish homeland. Despite restrictive British immigration policies, many Jews found refuge in Israel. The establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948 was met with fierce opposition from neighboring Arab countries, who rejected the creation of a Jewish state. This rejection led to the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, driven by the refusal to accept a Jewish state and resulting in significant losses for the Arab forces.

8/ Displacement and Historical Complexity.

The narrative that Jews “took away” Arab land oversimplifies a complex situation. The land of Israel has always been home to a diverse population, including Jews, Muslims, and Christians. The 1948 war and subsequent conflicts led to significant displacement on both sides, including the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries and the creation of Palestinian refugees. This complexity reflects a turbulent history rather than a simple story of land grabbing.

9/ Refuting the “Jews Left” Myth.

The claim that Jews left Israel and returned only after the Holocaust is misleading. The fluctuating Jewish population in Israel over the years does not negate the fact that Jews have consistently maintained a presence there. The migration waves of the 1880s and 1920s demonstrate a profound connection to the land, driven by historical and spiritual significance, not by temporary circumstances.

Saying that Jews left Israel and came back only after the Holocaust is like saying that pasta isn’t Italian because there was a shortage in the 1930s. The essence of our connection to the land has remained unbroken, despite periods of challenge and fluctuation. Just as Italian cuisine remains Italian regardless of temporary shortages, the historical and spiritual bond of Jews to Israel endures despite the changing dynamics over time.

11/ Conclusion: Resilience Through Truth

The ongoing attempts to distort, manipulate, or deny Jewish heritage and historical facts only serve to strengthen our resolve and unity. No one welcomed us to Israel after the Holocaust but the local Jewish community, who worked tirelessly to provide refuge and rebuild lives. Despite the efforts to alter or obscure these historical truths, they remain steadfast and undeniable.

We will not let you change our history. No matter how much people try to change this fact, it won’t work. Throughout history, countless attempts have been made to erase or undermine the Jewish people, and each time, these efforts have failed. Today, with a strong and thriving State of Israel, it is not only misguided but delusional to believe that such attempts can succeed. The more history is challenged or distorted, the closer and stronger we become as a people. Our connection to the land, our historical narrative, and our cultural identity are deeply ingrained and resilient, reinforcing our unbreakable bond to the land and our unwavering strength as a nation.

@AP_from_NY

[fatehbaz]

all the time, gotta walk away, for a moment, take a break, infuriated, when reading about European implementation of forced labour, particularly and especially thinking about nineteenth and early twentieth centuries plantations, whether it's sugarcane or rubber or tea or banana, whether it's British plantations in Assam or Malaya; Belgian plantations in Congo; French plantations in West Africa; Dutch plantations in Java; de facto United States-controlled plantations in Haiti or Guatemala or Cuba or Colombia. and the story is always: "and then the government tried to find a way to reimpose slavery under a different name. and then the government destroyed vast regions of forest for monoculture plantations. and then the government forced thousands to become homeless and then criminalized poverty to force people into plantation work or prison labor." like the plantation industries are central (entangled with every commodity and every infrastructure project) and their directors are influencing each other despite spatial distance between London and the Caribbean and the Philippines.

and so the same few dozen administrators and companies and institutions keep making appearances everywhere, like they have outsized influence in history. like they are important nodes in a network. and they all cite each other, and write letters to each other, and send plant collection gifts to each other, and attend each other's lectures, and inspire other companies and colonial powers to adapt their policies/techniques.

but. important that we ought not characterize some systems and forces (surveillance apparatuses, industrial might, capitalism itself) as willful or always conscious. this is a critical addendum. a lot of those forces are self-perpetuating, or at least not, like, a sentient monster. we ought to avoid imagining a hypothetical boardroom full of be-suited businessmen smoking cigars and plotting schemes. this runs the risk of misunderstanding the forces that kill us, runs the risk of attributing qualities to those forces that they don't actually possess. but sometimes, in some cases, there really are, like, a few particular assholes with a disproportionate amount of influence making problems for everyone else.

not to over-simplify, but sometimes it's like the same prominent people, and a few key well-placed connections and enablers in research institutions or infrastructure companies. they're prison wardens and lietuenant governors and medical doctors and engineers and military commanders and botanists and bankers, and they all co-ordinate these multi-faceted plans to dispossess the locals, build the roads, occupy the local government, co-erce the labour, tend the plants, ship the products.

so you'll be reading the story of like a decade in British Singapore and you're like "oh, i bet that one ambitious British surgeon who is into 'economics' and is obsessed with tigers and has the big nutmeg garden in his backyard is gonna show up again" and sure enough he does. but also sometimes you're reading about another situation halfway across the planet and then they surprise you (because so many of them are wealthy and influential and friends with each other) and it'll be like "oh you're reading about a British officer displacing local people to construct a new building in Nigeria? surprise cameo! he just got a letter from the dude at the university back in London or the agriculturalist in Jamaica or the urban planner from Bombay, they all went to school together and they're also all investors in the same rubber plantation in Malaya". so you'll see repeated references to the same names like "the British governor of Bengal" or "[a financial institution or bank from Paris or New York City]" or "[a specific colonial doctor/laboratory that does unethical experiments or eugenics stuff]" or "lead tropical agriculture adviser to [major corporation]" or "the United Fruit Company" and it's like "not you again"

[she-is-ovarit]

Women and girls are oppressed on the axis of sex:

Economic

 Around 2.4 billion women of working age are not afforded equal economic opportunity and 178 countries maintain legal barriers that prevent their full economic participation, according to the World Bank’s Women, Business and the Law 2022 report. In 86 countries, women face some form of job restriction and 95 countries do not guarantee equal pay for equal work.

Globally, women still have only three quarters of the legal rights afforded to men -- an aggregate score of 76.5 out of a possible 100, which denotes complete legal parity.

Gender inequality is a major cause and effect of hunger and poverty: it is estimated that 60 percent of chronically hungry people are women and girls. (Source: WFP Gender Policy and Strategy.)

Less than 20 percent of the world's landholders are women. Women represent fewer than 5 percent of all agricultural landholders in North Africa and West Asia, while in sub-Saharan Africa they make up an average of 15 percent.

In the United States, the labor force participation rate among females is 56.5% and among males is 67.5% for 2022

Vulnerable employment among women [in the US] has remained nearly the same since 1991. Workers in vulnerable employment are the least likely to have formal work arrangements, social protection, and safety nets to guard against economic shocks; thus they are more likely to fall into poverty. Vulnerable employment among women is 3.9% and among men is 4.6% in the United States for 2021.

In the United States, women spend 1.6 times as much time on unpaid domestic and care work than men. In 2019, women in the United States spent 15.3% of their day and men spent 9.7% of their day on unpaid work. 

A 2013 study revealed that 7.6% of lesbian couples in the United States live in poverty compared to 5.7% of married different-sex couples. Similarly, one-third of lesbian couples without a high school diploma were in poverty compared to 18.8% of different-sex couples.

Study: Stereotypes of middle-aged women as less ‘nice’ can hold them back at work.

Women hold 66% of all student loan debt. 41% of women undergraduates take out student loans, compared to 35% of male undergraduates. Women take an additional two years on average to pay off student loans.

Education

Women make up more than two-thirds of the world's 796 million illiterate people.

While progress has been made in reducing the gender gap in urban primary school enrollment, data from 42 countries shows that rural girls are twice as likely as urban girls to be out of school.

Male violence against women

In the United States, the share of women who have experienced intimate partner violence is nearly the same as the world average, 27%. Intimate partner violence is by far the most prevalent form of violence against women globally and is defined as the percentage of ever-married women (ages 15-49) who have ever experienced physical or sexual violence committed by their husband or partner.

35% of women worldwide have experienced either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence.

1 in 3 women, around 736 million, are subjected to physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner or sexual violence from a non-partner – a number that has remained largely unchanged over the past decade.

Globally, 7% of women have been sexually assaulted by someone other than a partner.

Globally, as many as 38% of murders of women are committed by an intimate partner.

200 million women have experienced female genital mutilation/cutting.

Violence against women in Mexico rises to over 70%, study finds

7 in 10 human trafficking victims are women and girls.

Women and girls represent 65 per cent of all trafficking victims globally. More than 90 per cent of detected female victims are trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

Politics, power, and Influence

28.7% of seats in national parliament were held by women in 2022 in the United States

Metadata analysis shows biographies of women on Wikipedia are deleted and marked non-notable at a significantly higher rate than those of men.

Women continue to be underrepresented in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, representing only slightly more than 35% of the world’s STEM graduates. Women are also a minority in scientific research and development, making up less than a third of the world’s researchers.

Medical discrimination, medical violence, and female healthcare

 Women 32% more likely to die after operation by male surgeon

Women are over-medicated because drug dosage trials are done on men.

Women are sometimes forcibly sterilized, without consent, across the globe.

Mental Health

A 2016 study investigating physical and mental health, and experiences of violence among male and female trafficking survivors in England found 78% of women and 40% of men reported high levels of depression, anxiety, or PTSD symptoms.

Female people in the US attempt suicide more frequently than men.

Adult women have higher rates of mental illness than adult men

Discrimination, bias, and sex-based stereotypes

 UN report finds 90% of men and women hold some sort of bias against females.

Men were 93 percent more likely to have their loans discharged when disclosing a medical condition, as compared to women who disclosed medical conditions.

We historically are not included in research, and when we are, are grouped in with men which is unhelpful (bonus question: What does this mean, then, if male people who "identify-as-women" are grouped in with women and not considered a separate category?)

The Madonna-Whore Dichotomy (MWD) denotes polarized perceptions of women in general as either “good,” chaste, and pure Madonnas or as “bad,” promiscuous, and seductive whores. Men who reported higher endorsement of the Madonna-whore-dichotomy rated their partner as less entitled to sexual pleasure. Women who reported higher endorsement of the Madonna-whore dichotomy devalued their own pleasure by rating their partner as more entitled to sexual pleasure than themselves.

“Their Great Shame is Poverty”: Women Portrayed as Among the “Undeserving Poor” are Seen as Deserving Sexual Assault

The Impact of Media Use on Girls' Beliefs About Gender Roles, Their Bodies, and Sexual Relationships: A Research Synthesis.

Mothers in China for decades pressured their daughters to bind their feet - often destroying the function and formation of their feet - in order to please and service men.

My one disclaimer to this post is that there is a tremendous amount of information left out of this post. This is because it is impossible to capture the vast amount of research and details within studies illuminating the sex-based oppression of women and girls. I have not gone into depth on the impact of media on teenage girls' body image, the role of trauma in girls influencing them to hate their bodies, FGM, the Iranian protests, etc. I hope others reblog and add more information.

[misfitwashere]

Musk’s dangerous bullying

ROBERT REICH

DEC 2

Friends,

No one better illustrates the sinister consequences of great wealth turned into unaccountable power than Elon Musk. 

Musk, the richest person in the world, is not only claiming presidential authority to fire federal workers, but he’s posting the identities of those whose jobs he wants to eliminate — with the clear intention that his followers harass and threaten them so they quit. 

Musk is utterly unaccountable. He has never been elected to anything, but he spent $120 million helping Trump become the president-elect and is now acting as if he’s Trump’s co-president, calling himself Trump’s “First Buddy.”

After buying Twitter for $44 billion, Musk turned it into a cesspool of disinformation and conspiracy theories and manipulated its algorithm to give himself 205 million followers, to whom he is now distributing treacherous lies. 

In recent days, Musk boosted posts on his website singling out the names and job titles of four federal employees working in climate policy and regulation who have done nothing other than hold titles Musk dislikes. All four targets are women. 

In one instance, Musk quote-tweeted a post highlighting the role of 37-year-old Ashley Thomas, a little-known director of climate diversification at the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation. 

Musk’s repost — “So many fake jobs” — garnered 32 million views, triggering a tsunami of taunts against Thomas, such as, “Sorry Ashley Thomas Gravy Train is Over” and “A tough way for Ashley Thomas to find out she’s losing her job.”

Musk apparently took the word “diversification” in Thomas’s title to mean the “D” in “DEI,” which Musk considers “woke.” 

Thomas (who holds degrees in engineering, business, and water science from Oxford and MIT) is focused on climate diversification to protect agriculture and infrastructure from extreme weather events.

Following Musk’s tweet, Thomas shut down several of her social media accounts. 

In another repost, Musk mocked Alexis Pelosi, a relative of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who works as a senior adviser to climate change at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

“Nancy Pelosi’s niece should not be paid $181,648.00 by the U.S. Taxpayer to be the ‘Climate Advisor’ at HUD,” the original account wrote. “But maybe her advice is amazing 🤣🤣” Musk snarked. 

Musk also singled out the chief climate officer in the Department of Energy’s loan programs office and shared the name of an employee serving as senior adviser on environmental justice and climate change at the Department of Health and Human Services.

IMHO, Musk’s targets should sue him for defamation. 

This is hardly the first time Musk has targeted specific people, and he obviously knows how dangerous such targeting can be. 

After taking over Twitter in 2022, Musk targeted Yoel Roth, the platform’s former head of trust and safety, who had recently left the company. Musk tweeted, incorrectly, that it looked like Roth had argued “in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services.” Some platform users interpreted this as Musk calling Roth a pedophile, and they posted calls for Roth’s death. 

Roth moved out of his house because of the threats. 

Musk has also singled out specific civil servants. In 2021, he targeted Missy Cummings, a former fighter pilot and senior adviser at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, whom Musk claimed was “extremely biased against Tesla” because she questioned the safety of Tesla’s advanced driver-assistance system. 

Cummings said she received death threats and was forced to leave her home as a result of Musk’s posts.

Musk’s current targeting is even more dangerous because he has the apparent authority of the president-elect. Although the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” that Musk is co-heading (with Vivek Ramaswamy) isn’t a real department and has not been authorized by Congress, Musk is acting as if it’s real. 

Cummings says Musk’s personal intimidation is already leading some longtime federal employees to leave their jobs: “He intended for them, for people just like this, to be intimidated and just go ahead and quit so he didn’t have to fire them. So his plan, to some extent, is working.”

**

I worked in the federal government between 1974 and 1980, first at the Federal Trade Commission and then at the Justice Department, and from 1993 to 1997 I served as secretary of labor. 

Most of the federal employees I came to know cared deeply about the common good. The vast majority did their work carefully and thoughtfully. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. 

But ever since Richard Nixon attacked “unelected bureaucrats” as America’s enemy and Ronald Reagan blamed “liberal bureaucrats” for government’s failings, government employees have been scapegoated. And now Trump is preparing to attack the so-called “deep state.”

In fact, America spends less each year on the federal government’s civilian workforce (roughly $200 billion) than we spend annually on federal contractors ($750 billion). 

Much of the “fat” is found in these private, for-profit contractors, who aren’t accountable to anyone except the office that draws up the contracts. 

The biggest waste is in the Defense Department, where many contractors have avoided competitive bidding because they have a monopoly over critical technologies. 

Which brings me back to Musk, whose businesses are fast becoming among the government’s largest contract monopolists. According to USASpending.gov (the government database that tracks federal spending), Musk’s SpaceX and his Starlink satellite division have signed contracts totaling nearly $20 billion. 

I don’t know how much waste and inefficiency are to be found in Musk’s government contracts because I haven’t been able to find any reports on them — which is precisely the problem. 

While Musk seeks to intimidate federal civil servants whose job titles he dislikes, forcing some to leave government because his postings have elicited threats to their lives, Musk is distracting attention from himself and his own profitable dips into the taxpayer trough. 

I invite any of you with an inclination to root out waste and inefficiency to find out what you can about any likely abuses in Musk’s government contracts, and let us know what you come up with.

[keep-both-eyes-on-trump]

Trump Watch #9

Trump has named the following: 

Linda McMahon as secretary of education. 

McMahon is a wrestling billionaire and co-founder of WWE. 

She has long been a supporter of Trump and served in his first administration as leader of the Small Business Administration. 

She has served on the Connecticut Board of Education and the board of trustees for Sacred Heart University in Connecticut. 

She supports charter schools and school choice. 

Scott Bessent for treasury secretary.

Bessent is a billionaire who advised Trump on economic policy during his campaign; he has experience founding and working for hedge funds.

If confirmed he will be the first LGBTQ+ Senate-confirmed cabinet member in a republican administration. 

He supports extending Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation.

He also supports Trump’s embrace of the crypto industry. 

Russell Vought for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Vought held the same position during Trump’s first term. 

He is a key architect from Project 2025 writing the chapter on the Executive Office within which he takes aim at federal regulatory agencies that are not under control of the White House..

He is a strong advocate for recess appointments of Trump’s nominees. 

Lori Chavez-Deremer as labor secretary.

Chavez-Deremer was the first Latina congresswoman of Oregon; she lost re-election in November. 

She co-sponsored the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act which would make it easier for workers to unionize. 

She has strong support from unions. 

Pam Bondi as attorney general.

Bondi is the Florida attorney general and is the first woman to hold the position. 

As FL state attorney general she brought cases against the Affordable Care Act and fought to maintain FL’s ban on same-sex marriage. 

She is a longtime ally of Trump, served as a chairwomen of America First Policy Institute, and defended Trump during his first impeachment trial. 

She received a $25,000 donation from Trump’s charitable foundation and subsequently her office dropped a suit against Trump’s company for fraud stating there were insufficient grounds to proceed. A prosecutor assigned by then-Gov. Rick Scott determined there was insufficient evidence to support bribery charges. 

Brook Rollins as secretary of agriculture

Rollins is a co-founder and president of think tank America First Policy and served as assistant to the president for intergovernmental and technology initiatives during Trump’s first administration. 

She is a lawyer with an undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University in agricultural development. 

Dr Marty Makary as Food and Drug Administration commissioner.

Makary is a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University. 

He supports RFK Jr. as Trump’s pick for HHS. 

He worked with the first Trump administration on transparent billing in health care. 

He opposed COVID vaccine mandates and was a critic of public health measures during the pandemic. 

Dr Janette Nesheiwat for Surgeon General.

Nesheiwat is a physician, medical director at CityMD, and former Fox News medical contributor. 

She is a supporter of vaccines. 

Dave Weldon to direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Weldon is a physician, Army veteran, and former Republican Florida representative. 

As a congressman he introduced the Weldon Amendment which provides protections for health care workers and organizations that do not provide or aid in abortions.

Scott Turner for secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Turner previously served in the Texas House of Representatives; he is a NFL veteran and motivational speaker. 

He led the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council during Trump’s first term and currently works as chair of the Center for Education Opportunity at America First Policy Institute. 

Republicans also announced plan to create a GOP-controlled subcommittee, Delivering on Government Efficiency, to work with the Department of Government Efficiency on cutting government waste; the committee is to be chaired by Marjorie Taylor Greene.

[cognitivejustice]

The current landscape of hyper-local urban farming across Asia

Globally, urban farming is evolving as cities seek innovative solutions to sustainably feed their growing urban populations. Techniques like vertical farming and hydroponics are at the forefront, allowing crops to be grown in layered setups or water-based environments, minimizing land use, and reducing water consumption.  

Urban farming in Asia presents a rich tapestry of approaches, each shaped by the unique challenges and priorities of the region’s diverse cultures and economies. The rapid urbanization and dense population clusters in Asia make urban agriculture not just a choice but a necessity, driving innovation and adaptation in several key areas. 

China 

China has become a leader in urban agriculture through heavy investment in technology and substantial government support. Initiatives like the Nanjing Green Towers, which incorporate plant life into skyscraper designs, exemplify how urban farming can be integrated into the urban landscape.  

The government has also implemented policies that encourage the development of urban farming, providing subsidies for technology such as hydroponics and aquaponics, which are vital in areas with contaminated soil or water scarcity. 

Japan 

With its limited arable land, Japan has turned to creative solutions to maximize space, such as rooftop gardens and sophisticated indoor farming facilities.  

One notable example is the Pasona Urban Farm, an office building in Tokyo where employees cultivate over 200 species of fruits, vegetables, and rice used in the building’s cafeterias.  

This not only maximizes limited space but also reduces employee stress and improves air quality. 

Singapore 

Singapore’s approach is highly strategic, with urban farming a crucial component of its national food security strategy. The city-state, known for its limited space, has developed cutting-edge vertical farming methods that are now being adopted globally.  

The government supports these innovations through grants and incentives, which has led to the success of vertical farms. These farms use tiered systems to grow vegetables close to residential areas, drastically reducing the need for food transportation and thereby lowering carbon emissions. 

India 

In contrast to the technology-driven approaches seen in other parts of Asia, India’s urban farming is largely community-driven and focuses on achieving food self-sufficiency.  

Projects like the Mumbai Port Trust Garden take unused urban spaces and convert them into flourishing community gardens. These projects are often supported by non-governmental organizations and focus on employing women, thus providing both social and economic benefits. 

Thailand 

Thailand’s urban farming initiatives often blend traditional agricultural practices with modern techniques to enhance food security in urban areas. In Bangkok, projects like the Chao Phraya Sky Park demonstrate how public spaces can be transformed into productive green areas that encourage community farming. These initiatives are supported by both local municipalities and private sectors, which see urban farming as a way to reduce food import dependency and improve urban ecological balance. 

The Philippines 

In the Philippines, urban farming is an adaptive response to urban poverty and food insecurity. Metro Manila hosts numerous community garden projects that are often grassroots-driven, with local government units providing support through land and resources. These gardens supply food and serve as educational platforms to teach urban residents about sustainable practices and nutritional awareness. 

[critical-skeptic]

Understanding the Southern Perimeter’s Republican Lean: A Multi-Factor Analysis

The political landscape of the United States is often discussed in terms of blue and red states, with certain regions consistently leaning Republican or Democrat. However, the southern perimeter of the continental U.S.—stretching from California to Florida—presents a unique case study. Despite cultural diversity, varying industries, and demographic shifts, this region generally leans Republican. This alignment, which includes border states with Mexico and those along the Gulf Coast, emerges from a complex interplay of geography, economics, historical values, and cultural attitudes.

1. Geographical and Climatic Influences

The southern perimeter is defined by its warmer climates, which attract specific demographics, most notably retirees. States like Florida have become retirement havens, drawing older populations from traditionally Democratic northern regions. This migration brings a demographic that often prioritizes conservative values such as lower taxes, property rights, and fiscal conservatism, aligning well with Republican ideologies. The subtropical to desert-like climate also shapes industries in these states, favoring agriculture, tourism, and energy sectors that lean conservative due to their reliance on limited government intervention and favorable regulatory policies.

Additionally, the shape and layout of these states play a role. California’s extensive north-south reach and diverse climate foster a mix of political ideologies, making it more complex, though its highly populated coastal cities tend toward Democratic dominance. By contrast, Arizona and Texas, with expansive rural and desert regions along the border, amplify conservative values centered on self-reliance and individualism, often associated with frontier mentality.

2. Historical and Cultural Factors

Southern states, including those on the southern perimeter, have a strong cultural legacy of conservatism rooted in a combination of frontier independence, skepticism of federal oversight, and a tradition of states’ rights. This tradition resonates with Republican ideology, which emphasizes limited government, individual liberties, and a cautious approach to social change. While California may stand as an exception due to its urban liberal hubs, the states from Texas through Florida reflect this traditional conservatism that has persisted over decades, reinforced by political institutions and local values.

Texas, in particular, embodies this “frontier spirit.” The state’s long history as a republic, combined with its emphasis on rugged individualism and suspicion of centralized power, aligns with Republican principles. Arizona, with its substantial rural population and similar desert environment, mirrors this mindset. The “frontier mentality” persists in these areas, where local culture values autonomy and self-reliance—traits that naturally dovetail with conservative ideologies.

3. Economics and Industry Patterns

Economic structures in these states contribute heavily to their conservative leanings. Texas, for example, is a major oil producer, while Florida’s economy is driven by tourism and agriculture. These industries often thrive under conservative economic policies, which typically favor deregulation, low taxes, and minimal government interference. Republican economic policies are seen as beneficial by stakeholders in these sectors, making the party an appealing choice for many business owners and workers.

Moreover, certain industries in these states feel the impact of immigration more directly, leading to support for stricter border policies and a more conservative stance on national security. Agriculture and construction in Arizona, Texas, and Florida rely heavily on immigrant labor but also face challenges from undocumented immigration, shaping local attitudes toward Republican policies that prioritize border enforcement and immigration control.

4. Proximity to the Mexican Border and the “Diversity Paradox”

For border states like Texas and Arizona, proximity to Mexico brings border security and immigration issues to the forefront of local politics. This isn’t just about geographical closeness; it’s about the daily reality of cross-border dynamics that influence attitudes toward national security, cultural integration, and economic impacts. The southern perimeter’s conservative alignment is often reinforced by a sense of ���us vs. them,” a cultural boundary that shapes perceptions of national identity and sovereignty.

Counterintuitively, the high diversity in these border states does not automatically translate to liberal leanings. Instead, the influx of new populations can sometimes trigger a conservative backlash, as local communities respond to perceived cultural and economic shifts. This “diversity paradox” suggests that in some cases, increasing diversity can actually entrench conservative ideologies as groups seek to preserve traditional values in the face of demographic changes. California and New Mexico differ here, as both have deeply rooted Hispanic and Native American populations that pre-date current immigration concerns, leading to a multicultural identity that integrates rather than reacts to diversity.

5. Rural-Urban Divide and Population Distribution

The rural-urban divide is a significant factor in understanding Republican dominance in the southern perimeter states. Urban centers in Texas (Austin, Houston, and Dallas), Arizona (Phoenix), and Florida (Miami) tend to lean Democratic, but the vast rural areas and smaller towns remain conservative strongholds. Given that these rural and suburban regions often have disproportionate legislative influence due to gerrymandering and districting practices, Republican preferences are amplified politically.

In these rural areas, the appeal of Republican ideology is tied to a distrust of federal intervention and a commitment to traditional social values. The conservative emphasis on “law and order” and the right to bear arms resonates with rural populations who prioritize self-sufficiency and often feel culturally alienated from urban liberalism. This dynamic creates a political landscape where urban and rural values clash, but the rural-dominated districts sustain Republican influence at state and federal levels.

6. Geopolitical Significance and National Policy

Border security, immigration, and national security are not merely abstract political issues in the southern perimeter states; they are local realities. The Republican party’s stance on border control and immigration resonates with communities directly impacted by these policies. For residents in states like Texas and Arizona, issues of border security are personal and immediate, influencing their political alignment. The southern perimeter’s exposure to these cross-border dynamics fuels support for policies that emphasize strict immigration enforcement, contributing to the region’s Republican leanings.

Furthermore, the high visibility of national debates on immigration and security in these states places them in a unique geopolitical position. Residents of the southern perimeter often view federal immigration policies through the lens of local impact, which can heighten conservative stances on enforcement and sovereignty, particularly during times of political polarization on these issues.

The southern perimeter’s Republican alignment, spanning from California to Florida, is a product of interwoven geographical, economic, cultural, and historical factors. From the lure of warm climates drawing conservative-leaning demographics to the economic structures that benefit from conservative policies, each element reinforces the region’s political leanings. The combination of rural influence, frontier mentality, and proximity to the Mexican border creates a unique political identity that sustains Republican dominance.

While California and New Mexico serve as exceptions due to their own unique geographic and cultural compositions, the southern perimeter as a whole demonstrates the impact of physical geography and local demographics on political identity. This analysis underscores how politics in border states cannot be reduced to simple assumptions about diversity or proximity to Mexico; instead, it is the product of complex, localized dynamics that shape conservative values and Republican support across the region.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Two million hectares of public land have been sold off since the 1970s, including NHS sites, valuable holdings in towns, and agricultural land put up for sale to fund cash-strapped councils. In the process, benefits formerly enjoyed by ordinary citizens have been sacrificed and new obstacles have been created for any programme of environmental renewal. In London and other major cities, where global capital has been flooding in to transform urban space, uprooting older communities and providing ‘deposit-box’ properties for the ultra-rich, reclaiming control will demand outright opposition to neo-liberal development policies. The same is true if we are to resist the spread of so-called ‘POPS’ (privately owned public spaces) that has come about as municipal planners have come under economic pressure to cede control to private developers, in what some academics regard as an era of ‘urban enclosure’ comparable to the rural enclosures of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Most criticism of these ‘pseudo-public’ spaces has been directed at the secrecy of their regulations on public use, their socially hygienic forms of policing or their corporate aesthetic. But their removal from public ownership also complicates the spatial and architectural conversions essential to the green renaissance of city life, and needs to be denounced on those grounds and reversed wherever possible.

Kate Soper, Post-Growth Living: For an Alternative Hedonism

[mariacallous]

Former U.S. President Donald Trump has unleashed his first major television spot against his new opponent in the 2024 election, Vice President Kamala Harris. The advertisement zeroes in on what he says is her failed record as “border czar.” Drugs, crime, and terrorism are all a result. As viewers see ominous images of migrants crossing the border while Harris dances, the narrator closes by saying: “Failed. Weak. Dangerously Liberal.”

It isn’t a surprise that Trump would start with immigration as his opening salvo. And that’s not because this topic has been important to Trump since he announced his first presidential run in 2015, or because the issue is more pertinent than others in 2024. Rather, going after immigration taps into a set of ideas that has become deeply rooted in the GOP. To understand how anti-immigrant rhetoric became woven into Republican politics, it is necessary to look back to Harris’s home state of California during the 1990s—a time when nativism, law and order, and partisanship all converged as the Cold War came to an end. Rather than boasting about being tough on communists, Republicans since that period have invested much of their political capital in talking about being tough on the border.

The hardening of Republicans on this issue signaled a remarkable shift. For much of the 20th century, nativist factions within the Republican Party had been forced to compete with a formidable pro-immigration tradition. When then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan worked with Democrats in Congress in 1986 to pass sweeping bipartisan reform that imposed stricter penalties on businesses hiring undocumented immigrants, the president also granted amnesty for almost 3 million people and created an agricultural worker program for undocumented immigrants. “Our nation is a nation of immigrants,” Reagan had proclaimed. Business leaders allied to the supply-side revolution staunchly defended liberal immigration policies as something that brought tremendous benefits to the economy.

But following Reagan’s second term, the Republicans started on a different, rightward road. It began in California, and it brought them to today’s ad.

By the early 1990s, Californians were not feeling so golden. Major cities such as Los Angeles struggled with the crack cocaine epidemic as well as gang violence. Urban blight had left many neighborhoods in shambles. The entire state slipped into an economic recession during the 1990s. Boom times went bust as unemployment rose.

More and more white Californians blamed immigrants for the state’s woes. Latinos and Asians had grown into a significant portion of the population following President Lyndon Johnson’s Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Once welcome as the embodiment of the American dream, during the downturn immigrants were said to be responsible for rampant crime, the rising cost of social services, and the exodus of factories. Critics tapped into old nativist traditions that had flared in different periods such as the 1920s.

Several key players drove the conservative turn. In Los Angeles, Chief of Police Daryl Gates had ruled the city with an iron fist throughout the 1980s, allowing his forces to trample on civil liberties and target minority populations in his ongoing effort to clean up the city. Although Gates instructed police to avoid enforcing immigration laws to obtain cooperation in criminal investigations, his officers were downright brutal in how they treated disadvantaged populations. Under Operation Hammer, which Gates launched in April 1987 and closed down in 1990, the Los Angeles police conducted massive raids that rounded up Hispanic and Black American youth who happened to be in a given vicinity, regardless of how much evidence existed about their being possibly guilty of a crime. Racial profiling and physical harassment were standard. He was Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry come to life. In an era when tough policing was lionized among Republican candidates and valorized in popular culture, Gates emerged as a heroic figure in law and order circles—until the urban unrest in Los Angeles in 1992, following the Rodney King beating, finally led to his downfall.

Gov. Pete Wilson, elected in 1990, was likewise pivotal. Facing a tight reelection race in 1994, Wilson championed Proposition 187, a measure to prevent undocumented immigrants from receiving basic non-emergency social services such as education and health care. His campaign in support of the “Save Our State” initiative broadcast blistering television ads that presented the darkest possible images of immigrants. Although he had rarely talked about these issues as a senator in the 1980s (in fact, he had supported greater access to immigrant labor for the agricultural industry), Wilson now staked much of his political future on the issue. “They keep coming,” warned the narrator in one ad, as viewers saw grainy images of people running through the border security. His bet paid off. On Nov. 8, 1994, California voters passed Proposition 187, 59 percent to 41 percent. Though the measure would become tied up in the courts, its popularity and Wilson’s victory signaled to Republicans all over the country that this was a winning issue.

Conservative grassroots activists kept the issue alive in the 1990s. One of the most important was Barbara Coe, who gained attention through her advocacy for Proposition 187. Coe emerged as one of the state’s fiercest champions of the nativist ethos. She founded the California Coalition for Immigration Reform to support Proposition 187. Often dressed in red, white, and blue garb, Coe, who was in her 60s, became a familiar face on the statewide media circuit, where she could be seen on television making one provocative statement after another about how “illegals” were destroying communities. In 1998, the organization purchased a massive billboard along Interstate 10 that read: “Welcome to California, the Illegal Immigration State: Don’t let this happen to your state.” Coe worked with an energetic network of activists including Ronald Prince, Les Blankhorn, and William King.

National Republicans picked up on the issue. Although many Republicans had initially stayed away from anything that Republican primary candidate Pat Buchanan had to say in 1992, including when he called conditions at the border “a national disgrace,” by the mid-1990s the party was singing a different tune. California was putting the immigration issue on the map. As a top advisor to President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, warned in 1993: “Immigration is emerging as the most powerful political issue in California, and the Administration must begin to deal with it.” On Capitol Hill, House Speaker Newt Gingrich pushed in 1996 for a major bill that ended the welfare system put into place by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935. His efforts gained traction as Clinton agreed to work on this bill, though it was much harsher than the kind of welfare reform the president had initially promoted. The result was the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which sharply curtailed social safety net benefits for non-citizens. In 1996, Republican presidential candidate Sen. Robert Dole ran an ad on “illegal aliens” that warned of “2 million illegal aliens in California” filling prisons, crowding schools, and costing billions of tax dollars. Clinton, the ad said, “fought California in court, forcing us to support them. Clinton fought Prop. 187, cut border agents, gave citizenship to aliens with criminal records. We pay the taxes. We are the victims. Our children get shortchanged.”

Congress also tightened restrictions on immigrants as part of the counterterrorism legislation passed after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Oklahoma City attack in 1995, and 9/11, including increasing the number of people eligible to be deported and raising the bar for obtaining legal status within the country.

The hard-line Republican immigration agenda focused attention almost exclusively on undocumented immigrants and the dangers they posed, pushing aside discussions of immigrants who arrived legally or undocumented immigrants who ended up naturalizing and becoming upstanding citizens. The rhetoric exaggerated crime, murder, and drugs while shifting attention away from the economic, cultural, and social benefits that social scientists have repeatedly shown were a result of immigration. The stories from the early 20th century of immigrants making America great were replaced with shady images of immigrants undermining our well-being.

The Republican road from California to Trump was not inevitable. President George W. Bush, who expanded the Republican Hispanic vote in 2004 from 1996, pushed for a grand bargain in his second term that would have provided a legal path to citizenship for almost 12 million people in exchange for tougher border control and deportation measures. Congressional Republicans killed his initiative. Republican Party politics, as historian Sarah Coleman has argued in The Walls Within, congealed around a hard-line restrictionist agenda. Democrats, including President Barack Obama, failed in their efforts to obtain legislation providing for a path to citizenship inxchange for their support of tough deportation and border control policies. While Obama was able to put into place the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program through executive action, protecting certain undocumented immigrants who arrived as children

When Trump’s administration imposed a travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries, implemented a policy of separating children from their families at the border, ramped up deportation, spent federal funds on building a massive border wall, ended DACA (though SCOTUS overturned his decision) most Republicans cheered. As a surge of immigrants became a bigger problem in Democratic cities in 2022, Republicans ramped up their attacks. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott bused undocumented immigrants to blue cities across America. Democrats became defensive.

By 2024, Biden pushed for a bipartisan immigration bill that centered entirely on border control and deportation. The liberalization part of the bargain was gone. Yet even as Democrats caved, Trump persuaded congressional Republicans to kill the deal so that he could run on the issue in the fall.

So what should Harris do? It would be a mistake for her to simply play defense. Doing so won’t stop the ferocity of the attacks. As was often the case with national security during the Cold War, responding with claims to be the tougher party only fuels the narrative of opponents.

Harris’s own personal story is a powerful reminder that we are a nation of immigrants and that immigration has been part of the lifeblood of American society. Her father emigrated from Jamaica. Her mother arrived to the United States from India. Harris also understands, as she wrote in The Truths We Hold, that “for as long as ours has been a nation of immigrants, we have been a nation that fears immigrants.”

In fact, this presidential campaign provides an opportunity for a reset. Democrats have been struggling with this issue for years. Harris has an opportunity to fight back against Republican attacks, not by mimicking the GOP message, but by offering a different vision of what immigration means. She can move beyond what she called the “false choices” that have defined the debate. Yes, the nation needs tough border controls and deportation procedures, but it’s time to remember just how vital immigrants, documented and undocumented, have been and remain for us all.

While continually challenging the veracity of the claims that Trump throws out about what previous border policies have done, the vice president can also tether the broader dialogue to a deep appreciation of immigrants as one of the most defining elements of American history. Most of us have immigrant roots; many of us are immigrants. Immigration has made America great.

Hopefully, with a more constructive conversation, we can begin to bring back the vision of a grand bargain that rationalizes our immigrant system, from better border policies to a path to citizenship. And perhaps the candidate from California, where the rightward turn began in the 1990s, can lead the nation in a new direction in 2024.

[falseandrealultravival]

Dialogue with Gemini (16) The Seine and The Ganges

Bathing in the Ganges

My Question:

The Seine was the venue for the triathlon at the Paris Olympics, and after the event, some people vomited or fell ill and were hospitalized. Someone also asked an Indian woman if she would swim in the Ganges, but she said, "I won't swim in such a dirty river." The Ganges is a river where animal carcasses and excrement flow. Which river is more polluted, the Seine or the Ganges?

パリオリン��ックでトライアスロンの会場となったセーヌ川、競技後、嘔吐したり、体調を崩したりして入院する人が出現した。またインド人の女性に、ガンジス川に入るか、と質問した人がいたが彼女は「あんな汚い川には入らない」と言っていた。動物の死体とか排泄物とかが流れるガンジス川。セーヌ川とガンジス川、どっちがより汚染されていると言えるか？

Huggingface’s Answer

Whether the Ganges or the Seine is more polluted requires considering various factors, but it is generally believed that the Ganges is more polluted.

The Ganges is a large river that originates in the Himalayas in India and flows through northern India, with a total length of 2,500 kilometers. The Ganges is a very important river in Indian religion and culture, and many Indians visit the river for bathing and worship. However, the Ganges has suffered from severe pollution for many years. The main causes of river pollution are untreated wastewater from factories and households, industrial waste, and ashes and animal carcasses that are thrown into the river during religious ceremonies. These pollutants may contain E. coli and other pathogens, which pose a serious risk to human and animal health.

On the other hand, the Seine is a 776-kilometer-long river that flows through northern France and is well known for flowing through the city of Paris. The Seine has also been polluted due to urbanization and industrialization, but not as severely as the Ganges. Sources of pollution in the Seine include wastewater from cities, agricultural water, and industrial water. However, the Parisian authorities are actively working to improve the water quality of the Seine, and the water quality is gradually improving.

According to a 2018 report published by the Yale University Environmental Law and Policy Center, an international water quality assessment organization, the Ganges is ranked 10th among the most polluted rivers in the world, indicating the severity of water pollution. On the other hand, the Seine is not in the top 10 in the report.

From the above, it can be said that although both the Ganges and the Seine are polluted, the Ganges faces more serious pollution.

Impression:

It was as expected, but just out of curiosity, I would like to see just how dirty the Ganges is.