HN user
The "bit" of development is massive deforestation by 2030 equal to the size of the state of Florida, according to the linked Reuters article.
Lula ran on a platform to preserve the rainforest and reverse deforestation, yet his policies are leading to the catastrophic devastation of it.
Just a reminder that Brazil bulldozed parts of the protected Amazon rainforest to build a 4 lane highway for the COP 30 climate summit this year. Thousands (50,000?) of "climate champions" burned millions of liters of fossil jet fuel flying from around the world (many on private jets), then drove on a freshly bulldozed highway through cleared Amazon land. Seems a bit ironic.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vy191rgn1o
Brazil is also bulldozing large swaths of the rainforest to build thousands of kilometers of roads to sea ports to access trade routes with China.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazils-lula-backs-hi...
Oh yeah, Lula wants rich nations to pay billions of dollars to Brazil annually to protect the rainforest.
There are some who argue Argentina would face massive social unrest if it weren't for it's welfare programs.
"Benítez is one of millions of Argentines who survive largely thanks to soup kitchens and state welfare programs, many of which are funneled through politically powerful social movements linked to the ruling party. Almost a third of Argentine households are estimated to receive some kind of social assistance."
https://apnews.com/article/politics-argentina-buenos-aires-i...
With Argentina having hyperinflation for so long, how have they avoided a worse fate similar to Venezuela?
So are these special cases or are the winners of remote work all fleeing to New Zealand?
Larry Page's son was transported by medavac to a hospital there. He's able to stay due to a visa with the requirement of a $7 million investment.
I wasn't aware that New Zealand are accepting immigrants right now.
Which visa does NZ allow you to live there and work remotely?
Here is the report from July 26, 2021.
https://www.cpag.org.nz/news/?m=202107
"An additional 18,000 children were probably pushed into poverty in the 12 months to March 2021, even without taking rising housing costs into account, according to new modelling in the report, entitled The first year of Covid-19: Initial outcomes of our collective care for low-income children in Aotearoa New Zealand"
"This increase in child poverty of around 10% comes at a time when property owners have seen their wealth rise at an accelerated rate," said McAllister. "Loss of income related to job loss was probably inevitable for many families; but loss of income to the point of inadequacy - or further inadequacy - was due to political decision-making.
"The Government avoided one massive health and economic crisis but it enabled another one - that of poverty, homelessness and inequality - to grow rapidly."
I've seen it mentioned in the past. Here is an article I was able to dig up.
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/number-of-children-i...
The child poverty rate increased by 10%. I would say that an increase of children living in inhumane conditions is more than an inconvenience.
The next mayor of NYC, Eric Adams, ran and won on a pro-police platform. He won in one the most diverse cities in the US, with the diverse bloc (his highest voter support was in majority black and hispanic neighborhoods) carrying him to victory. I wouldn't say this group is the law and order reactionaries you mentioned. Also, he is bringing back past policies that were labeled as racist. Why do you think he won with such a platform?
Here are some of those issues.
- Bringing back the plainclothes police unit that was famously disbanded last summer.
- Deploy more police to poor neighborhoods.
- Bring back a variation of stop and frisk (stop, ask questions and frisk).
Do snarky comments like this add to the discussion?
Is the main reason for substance abuse really lack of jobs and lack of hope?
I'm curious where you got your data from.
In regards to those living on the streets, the main cause of them being homeless is substance abuse and mental illness.
Seattle light rail was sold to the voters with one premise being upsizing the surrounding neighborhoods. Once construction began, upsizing became controversial and never happened in some neighborhoods because of gentrification fears.
I wonder how many homeless are unseen.
My experience with those living on the streets is that substance abuse and mental health is the main symptom of them living that lifestyle. They will be the first ones to tell you if you're willing to have a conversation with them.
I just looked at a few lists of the most racially diverse cities in the U.S. and SF doesn't make any of those lists.
San Francisco also has a disproportionately low amount of black folks living there.
I don't have any experience with the housing issue in California, but got involved a while back trying to find pragmatic solutions in Seattle.
The situation is a mess and there is an entire "homeless industrial complex" complicating matters here, rife with fraud, misspending and cronyism.
Every year it seems like many millions of dollars more are spent on this issue but it keeps getting visibly worse.
At first I was in the "Housing First" crowd, but after my experiences I would say I more firmly believe in "Rehab First".
A local news station released a great documentary called "Seattle is Dying". It has 10 million views since released a couple of years ago. https://youtu.be/bpAi70WWBlw
The sequel is "The Fight For the Soul of Seattle". https://youtu.be/WijoL3Hy_Bw
After the 2016 election I was really curious as to how Trump could be elected. Most of my peers brushed it off as dumb, racist white people, but I really wanted to understand. Especially since I had family who had voted for him who I don't consider to be dumb or racist.
I'm from the coast and live in the city. When taking a road trip through the Midwest, it hit me that people from the rust belt and rural areas had to vote for his message. Honestly it was depressing to see the decaying factories and poverty stricken areas. He was giving them hope and was going to fight for them. Anyway, I may be wrong but that's just my perspective.
Someone posted this video here yesterday with Steve Bannon explaining the populist movement and how Trump came to be president. There are multiple parts and this video is over two hours long but worth the watch. I'm not normally one to watch a video over half an hour and especially not Steve Bannon, but it's quite fascinating to hear this story and perspective.
Here is the text from the tweet that I had previously posted. Mayor Bowser goes on to say in her letter that MPD and their partners are well prepared for the event and didn't need further assistance.
I'm not certain the context of why she begins her statement "To be clear". I looked at her previous tweets from the day and day before and this matter wasn't specifically addressed. The only thing I could think of is that a federal law enforcement authority wanted to get involved and she didn't feel the need?
https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1346530358674792466
"To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway."
I totally get what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that there are community guidelines here to create civil discourse that is not present on other internet forums.
Here are some definitions of fascism:
"forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism"
"violent suppression of the opposition"
The business owner in the video has said the Antifa group has retaliated against his business by smashing their windows and causing destruction to other business for sending a letter to the Mayor.
Victoria Beach from the African-American community relations says in the video "if you don't agree with them they're going to attack you in some way, in a group, not one on one. They are cowards and we aren't going to take it".
According to the literal definition they are fascists.
I'm talking about politeness and courtesy not name calling. Having a discussion and avoiding snarky comments so this forum doesn't devolve into Twitter or Reddit.
"I assume you have noticed how the majority of the people in the 1/6 "protests" were white, didn't you? "
"You're gonna have to provide more than "could it be," and "perhaps," if you want me to swallow that line."
"Are you actually trying to make that claim or just arguing for the sake of arguing?"
"If you can't deal with that, I'd suggest you avoid internet discussions entirely."
I don't agree that that's the obvious conclusion, and I have give you three very plausible arguments against that.
That's fine, obviously we don't have to agree.
I do ask that you be a bit more civil though in our discussion.
I was just giving you plausible explanations. But sure it's always easy to say "X" got away with this because of white privilege.
I don't think that Mayor Bowser refused to get additional law enforcment because of white privilege.
Could it be that this particular group at the Capitol didn't have any supposed proclivity to violence?
This was supposed to be a group of people who "backed the blue" and stood for law and order. Perhaps their guard was let down because of this?
Perhaps it was because the police response to mass gatherings has changed and become more lenient since the beginning of the BLM protests.
Interesting that you posted this link with the image of national guard members on the Lincoln Memorial steps this summer. I had read the an official, maybe Mayor Bowser didn't want this exact scene pictured to happen again because it looked bad.
Anyway, here is the tweet from the Mayor Bowser officially declining additional federal law enforcement to help MPD and their partners.
I don't think sending a one liner and a link to Wikipedia is keeping in good spirit with this forum.
This is an interesting take that I have seen in my Facebook feed, media and Joe Biden about white privilege allowing the protestors into the Capitol building.
How did white privilege allow them access?
Can you substantiate your claims?
So when Veronica Beach talks about Antifa terrorizing parts of Seattle, are they fascists?
That's a strange framework to decide who the fascists are.