government investment

anonymous asked:

The f'n FBI came to my place of work (badges and everything) to ask me about my brother over some facebook posts. Like, I cannot make this up. This sounds like a joke, but I'm kinda scared. Like, what do I do now?

lmao likes it’s not a joke, the feds really do take interest in social media. border patrol is looking through people’s facebooks for political opinions, feds are looking through peoples facebooks to see like what their protesting plans are and shit, the government invests millions in researching communist memes, they’re putting communist professors on watchlist lmao … like… they really are… doing this shit 


The Future Of Energy Isn’t Fossil Fuels Or Renewables, It’s Nuclear Fusion

“Nuclear fusion as a power source has never been given the necessary funding to develop it to fruition, but it’s the one physically possible solution to our energy needs with no obvious downsides. If we can get the idea that “nuclear” means “potential for disaster” out of our heads, people from all across the political spectrum just might be able to come together and solve our energy and environmental needs in one single blow. If you think the government should be investing in science with national and global payoffs, you can’t do better than the ROI that would come from successful fusion research. The physics works out beautifully; we now just need the investment and the engineering breakthroughs.”

Climate science is a hotly debated area, with many disputing the robustness and ethical motivations of the scientists in the field. But even if you throw everything we know about carbon dioxide, global warming, and climate change away, there’s still an energy crisis coming in the long term. The fact is, fossil fuels will someday, hundreds of years from now, run out if we extract and burn them all. Meanwhile, solar, wind, hydroelectric and other renewables will forever be inconsistent, and the infrastructure needed for using both generates large amounts of pollutants. But there is one power option that could satisfy everybody, while eliminating both pollution and the risks of running out of fuel or power inconsistency: nuclear fusion. While nuclear fission does have substantial downsides, there’s no risk of a meltdown with fusion.

All we need to do is reach the breakeven point, and we have four different approaches currently in progress. Come get the science today!

anonymous asked:

PLEASE stop posting the white devil emma Watson. PLEASE. I will pay u. I will give u my first born child. Watson has made men a priority in feminism and rewards men for doing the bare minimum. Which is insulting to every gender. She's got some REAL messed up stuff going on.

Look, I’m all for calling out White Feminism at every turn, and I have, but SJblur nitpicking on every white feminist they see and when you start calling them the White Devil coz you don’t fully agree with or misunderstand them, you already lost the argument. She didn’t kill nobody, nor advocated violence on anyone, so take it down several notches. 

first of, she’s a UN Goodwill Ambassador for UN Women. Her main job is to use her popularity to give speeches actual experts and professionals on gender equality wrote for her, because if these experts give the same speech, no one will pay attention; but if she does, people will. Same thing that other celebrities do who are tapped to be UN Ambassadors: Angelina Jolie on refugees, George Clooney on South Sudan, Leonardo di Caprio on Climate Change, etc. 

No celebrity chosen as UN Goodwill Ambassador are chosen for their expertise in the field, they are chosen because when they speak people pay attention. Those truly invested in the cause will sit on meetings or go on the field when they’re not making a movie, but their role as spokeperson remains. Their words are not their words, most of the time they are basically the executive summaries of UN reports. 

Emma Watson’s UN speech was criticized as feminism 101, and it was, but to expect she gives a graduate seminar on feminism with her limited speaking time is imo ludicrous. She’s paid very well but that’s still above her pay grade. The main purpose of her speech was to get attention from the public, generate political will from lawmakers, and fundraise a shit ton of money for the cause. 

And via the HeForShe Campaign, she was able to do that very successfully. She got powerful men from President Barack Obama to the President of Seira Leonne to not just make a commitment to gender equality but have their governments actually invest in gender equality programs in their own countries and/or give more foreign aid to women’s empowerment programs.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Did the USSR have a colonial relationship with outer SSRs under Lenin and Stalin?


One of the staple errors of the Bolshevik line when it came to self-determination of oppressed peoples under tsarism was the lack of struggle or attempting to correct Great Russian Chauvinism (Lenin himself was guilty of this, and Stalin, as an ethnic Georgian, had even less influence to counter it), resulting in situations such as the Tashkent Soviet where the Bolsheviks established a Revolutionary Government with almost no participation from the local population/workers. However when these [workers] tried to set up their own [Muslim] Bolshevik branch, they were heavily repressed by the Bolsheviks.

While you could argue the following (from an otherwise anti-communist source):

“... the regime’s economic policy as a whole does not discriminate against  the minority areas and their economic development in favor of the Great  Russians. Soviet industrialization was, of course, based on forced  savings, which the government extracted for investment at the cost of  popular consumption. But the minorities were not asked to bear a  disproportionate share of the resulting hardships of a depressed living  standard. The burden fell on all; in fact, it might be argued that the  Great Russian majority initially made the greater sacrifice in order to  permit the development of the capital-hungry, economically backward  areas.

One economist has estimated, for example, that while the all-Union   living standard fell markedly during the 1930’s, in the four republics   of Central Asia (not counting Kazakhstan), it may actually have improved  to a slight degree. At the time the local economy was undergoing rapid  change, as indicated by the fact that industrial output, which had been  negligible, multiplied between six and nine times over between 1928 and  1937. Such an increase could only have been accomplished by the  substantial investment of capital drawn from other parts of the country  and by the application of new technology. Such help was even more  important to the agriculture of the region.

In the initial stage of European colonial development, substantial   capital was invested in the colonies, but often only in order to create a  one-crop economy that in the long run was economically disadvantageous  to the local people. There was an element of this approach in the Soviet  regime’s insistence on the expansion of cotton acreage in Central Asia,  usually at the expense of existing wheat crops. But the area was not  treated simply as a vast cotton plantation for the rest of the Soviet  Union. On the contrary, existing resources of other kinds were widely  developed. A hydro-electric power industry was developed, the output of  which increased 8.5 times over in the period 1928-37. Earlier virtually  all cotton had been shipped to Russia to be made into textiles, which in  turn had to be shipped back, but in the 1930’s a substantial textile  industry was established in Tashkent. Leather shoe-making was  established to utilize the hides from the region’s extensive herds.  These efforts make it evident that capital was retained in the area and  not syphoned off for accumulation at the center. The data already cited  on the growth of education and other cultural and social facilities  similarly indicate that a goodly share of the returns accrued from  exploitation of the region’s natural wealth was reinvested in raising  standards in the region.

Although the central Asian case may be one of the more outstanding   examples, it reflects the general pattern of Soviet policy in the   economic development of backward areas. The allocation of investment   during the process of economic expansion has not in any significant   degree been guided by considerations of nationality, but rather by those  of economic efficiency or the defense needs of the country. And the   benefits—as well as the burdens—which have resulted from economic   development have been more or less equally shared by all peoples of the Soviet Union.

(Alex Inkeles, “Nationalities in the USSR.” Problems of Communism Vol. 9 No. 3 (May 1960). pp. 33-34.)

The study of Soviet history gives you ample evidence that Great Russian colonialism was present until the dissolution of the Soviet Union (further intensifying during the decentralisation of the Soviet economy during Khrushchev), and this is noticeable on the expectations raised by the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic regarding other Soviet republics and their society, culture, etc.

Our overall opinion falls on that the USSR, as an alliance of Soviet Republics, had an important role in developing backward feudal societies into industrialised ones, revitalising their cultures, and providing material conditions for millions of workers, as well as promoting the liberation of women and their importance within a socialist society.

But this alliance was a deeply flawed one, and riddled with serious contradictions that remain unresolved even today as consequence of the colonial relationship between western Soviet republics and the eastern Soviet Republics – the continuous export of resources from the latter to the industry of the former, the concentration of industry in western Soviet republics, and the uneven development that kept eastern Soviet republics almost entirely agrarian save for a few specific industries.

Minister: Canada will build up its military as the U.S. pulls back from world stage

By Alan Freeman, Washington Post, June 6, 2017

OTTAWA–Canada intends to make “a substantial investment” in its military because it can no longer rely on the United States for leadership in the face of threats posed by terrorist groups or countries like Russia and North Korea, the Canadian foreign minister said Tuesday.

Echoing complaints made recently by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Chrystia Freeland told Canada’s House of Commons that Washington is no longer committed to its position of world leadership, forcing Canada to invest in its own armed forces to defend liberal democracy.

“The fact that our friend and ally has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership, puts into sharper focus the need for the rest of us to set our own clear and sovereign course,” Freeland said, never mentioning President Trump by name. But she said many of the voters in last November’s U.S. presidential election cast ballots “animated in part by a desire to shrug off the burden of world leadership.”

While setting out several areas where Canada has taken a different tack from Washington, Freeland conceded that Canada has not been pulling its weight in terms of its military spending. It’s a criticism that Trump has made of several NATO members, without singling out Canada. She promised that in the future Canada will do its “fair share.”

In 2016, Canada spent just over 1 percent of its gross domestic product on its military, half of the 2 percent level that is the goal of the NATO alliance. In fact, Canada ranks 20th of 28 NATO members in military spending. The United States is No. 1 at 3.6 percent of GDP.

“On the military front, Canada’s geography has meant that we have always been able to count on American self-interest to provide a protective umbrella beneath which we have found indirect shelter,” Freeland said. But she added that to depend totally on U.S. protection would make Canada a “client state.”

“To put it plainly, Canadian diplomacy and development sometimes require the backing of hard power,” she said.

“We will make the necessary investments in our military, to not only address years of neglect and underfunding, but also to place the Canadian armed forces on a new footing,” she added, without providing any figures. Freeland’s speech is to be followed Wednesday with an announcement of a new defense policy review.

Although Freeland was careful to say that Canada was “grateful” for the “outsized role” that the United States has played in the world, there was an undertone of disappointment throughout the speech, something seldom heard recently in Canada-U.S. relations.

Laura Dawson, director of the Canada Institute at Washington’s Woodrow Wilson Center, said she saw the speech as less a “shot against the U.S.” as an effort by Canada to reassert its voice on the international stage while continuing to be seen as a helpful ally to Washington.

She said she expects Trudeau’s government to invest significantly in new military equipment and boost defense spending but says the nation will probably not attain the 2 percent GDP threshold set by NATO. “I would be quite surprised to see a doubling of Canadian military spending,” she said.

Jeremy Corbyn letter to the Prime Minister regarding the independent public inquiry into the fire at Grenfell Tower

Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party, has today written to the Prime Minister regarding the decision to hold a full and independent public inquiry into the fire at Grenfell Tower.

Jeremy Corbyn said:

“Whilst the inquiry should be limited to the awful events at Grenfell Tower, it must be empowered to consider all the steps that were, or were not, taken leading up to and contributing to this most terrible incident. It must also identify the urgent steps that need to be taken in relation to fire safety standards for other buildings of this nature.

“In addition to finding facts, the inquiry must be empowered to make recommendations for the avoidance of any similar future disaster – and in so doing, to consider recommendations arising from previous similar fire-related deaths.”

The full text of the letter is below.

Theresa May                                                                                     16 June 2017

The Prime Minister

10 Downing Street



Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to note your decision to hold a full and independent public inquiry into the fire at Grenfell Tower and to seek your assurance that the inquiry you establish will be held under the provisions of the 2005 Inquiries Act.

On the assumption that it is your intention to establish a 2005 Act Inquiry, I want to share my view that it is vital that the Terms of Reference be drawn with sufficient scope for the inquiry to establish all the relevant facts and to ensure that all necessary lessons are learned. Whilst the inquiry should be limited to the awful events at Grenfell Tower, it must be empowered to consider all the steps that were, or were not, taken leading up to and contributing to this most terrible incident. It must also identify the urgent steps that need to be taken in relation to fire safety standards for other buildings of this nature.

In addition to finding facts, the inquiry must be empowered to make recommendations for the avoidance of any similar future disaster – and in so doing, to consider recommendations arising from previous similar fire-related deaths.

It is very important that the Terms of Reference are drawn with sufficient scope to require the participation of all those with a legitimate interest – this should undoubtedly include the bereaved families, survivors and also individuals and organisations with a legitimate interest such as the residents’ campaign and representative organisations who were involved in the period leading up to these events. Their views and experiences are as important, if not more so, as the expert opinions of state actors and their service providing contractors.

I am also very concerned to ensure that this public inquiry is not used to delay any parallel actions which might be taken by interested parties. It is important that justice is served in as comprehensive and timely way possible. This must include, of course, ensuring that legal funding is available to support those involved in the inquiry and any inquests.  I would also like to support the request of the Mayor of London for an interim report to be produced which I believe is important for the community to feel as if justice is being done in a timely manner.

Whilst I believe that the policies and priorities of your government in the arenas of social housing and public safety are legitimate targets for my criticism, I hope we both share a determination to discover the truths underpinning this tragedy so to avoid any repetition.  For these reasons, in support of my hope to publicly welcome your decision, I would appreciate early consultation on your government’s proposed inquiry Terms of Reference.

In response to my question yesterday, the Minister of State for Policing and the Fire Service made it very clear that survivors made homeless would be appropriately and locally rehoused. This is imperative in order that they be enabled to re-build their lives and have some hope of recovery from these devastating events. It now appears that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea may not be as committed to ensuring that all are re-housed locally. Your public re-commitment to this is imperative as part of an unequivocal, wider statement that the government will do all it can to provide timely practical support to those who have suffered so much. In this context, I note the announcement of the first government investment of £5million. Given the magnitude and scale of the crisis, this will clearly not be sufficient and I therefore await information regarding further funding plans.

On a related matter, I believe that an attitude of generosity and compassion in relation to the costs of funeral expenses and ensuring that it is possible for families living outside the UK to travel here to attend funerals, as well as participate in the inquiry, is also warranted in such a tragic situation. This is particularly the case given the circumstances of many of the Grenfell Tower residents, including the number of bereaved families who may be resident overseas and the costs of burial and cremation. As was also raised at yesterday’s brief discussion in the Grand Committee, I would expect that the Home Office guarantees the replacement, as a matter of urgent priority, of all documentation for those affected.

Finally, on behalf of all those in the Labour Party, may I express our admiration for those in the emergency services who responded with the utmost courage and professionalism and share our deepest sorrow at these harrowing events – and commit that we will do all in our power to ensure that this be the last such tragedy of its kind in our country.

Yours sincerely,

Jeremy Corbyn

Justice Democrats - Democrats That Represent People, Not Corporations

Operation Democratic Backbone.

It’s time to face the facts: the Democratic Party is broken and the corporate, establishment wing of the party is responsible. Republicans now hold most state legislatures, most governorships, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the presidency. So in 2018, hundreds of Justice Democrats will run a unified campaign to replace every corporate-backed member of Congress and rebuild the party from scratch. This is our plan:

Pass a constitutional amendment to put an end to Washington corruption and bring about election reform. Super PACs should be banned, private donations to politicians and campaigns should be banned, and a clean public financing system should be implemented to end the takeover of our government by corporations and billionaires. Americans deserve free and fair elections – free from the corruption of big money donors. The Supreme Court has effectively legalized bribery. It’s time for an Article 5 convention to take our democracy back from the brink of oligarchy. Prior to passing this amendment, all members of the Justice Party should reject billionaire and corporate donations when running for office to show the American people we don’t just talk the talk, we walk the walk. Ranked choice voting should also be implemented to make smaller parties a viable option. All provisions of the voting rights act should be reinstated, and gerrymandering for partisan gain should be banned.

Re-regulate Wall Street and hold white-collar criminals accountable. Despite engaging in systemic fraud and causing a subprime mortgage meltdown and the great recession, you can count the people from Wall Street who are in prison for their crimes on one hand. It’s time to prosecute the criminals, bring back Glass-Steagall, and re-regulate Wall Street to prevent another crash. Prison is not just for the poor and the middle class anymore. We will have cops on Wall Street, not just Main Street.

End billionaire and corporate tax dodging, fix the system to benefit middle-class and poor people. Corporations dodge $450 billion a year in taxes by using offshore tax havens. We should end this injustice, as well as chain the capital gains tax to the income tax, increase the estate tax, and implement the Buffet rule so that no millionaire CEO pays less in taxes than his or her secretary. It’s time for a tax system that benefits the middle-class and the poor, and makes the top 1% and multinational corporations pay their fair share.

Defend free speech and expression. We support the right to express unpopular opinions without fear of censorship. We support free speech on college campuses. The marketplace of ideas should be embraced. A vibrant debate is healthy for democracy, and we should cherish our first amendment. We also support net neutrality for a free and open internet.

Oppose bigotry. We must speak out against racism, sexism, xenophobia, and all forms of bigotry. Non-discrimination protections that currently apply to race, religion, and gender should be expanded to include the LGBTQ community and the atheist community. Making all Americans equal is not asking for special privileges, it’s asking for the rule of law – justice and equality for all as outlined in the United States Constitution.

Make the minimum wage a living wage and tie it to inflation. This is about justice and basic human decency. If you work hard and you work full time you shouldn’t live in poverty.

Ensure universal healthcare as a right. The United States should catch up to every other modern nation and implement a single-payer, medicare-for-all system. There’s no reason we can’t be #1 in the world instead of #37. It’s time to end the destruction of American healthcare by rapacious, price gouging, for-profit, private health insurance middlemen.

Ensure universal education as a right. Educating the citizenry of a nation pays dividends in the long run, with the economy getting back much more than is initially put in. Crushing student debt for higher education would no longer burden young men and women trying to improve their lives through hard work. We should strive to have the best education system in the world.

End unnecessary wars and nation building. The United States maintains 800 military bases worldwide at a cost of $100 billion a year, this is money that can be spent at home creating jobs, rebuilding infrastructure, and investing in the future of the people. The disastrous war in Iraq cost trillions, the war in Afghanistan is 15 years in with no end in sight, and we’re currently bombing 7 different countries. We spend more on our military than the next 8 countries combined. Despite countless lives lost and destroyed, terrorism has only gotten worse. It’s time to end the wars and the perverse monetary-incentive structure that makes politicians flippant about sending young men and women to die. Unilateral U.S. military force should only be used as a last resort to defend the nation. The current budget could be cut drastically if we used our department of defense for what it was intended – defending us, instead of waging interventionist wars.

End the failed war on drugs. The goal is legalization, taxation, and regulation. Prohibition only makes drug cartels more powerful, increases crime, and makes drugs more dangerous due to lack of enforced safety standards. What you put in your body is your own business, and your right. A free society should allow individuals to make their own choices about their bodies. While most users are recreational and moderate, rehabilitation and treatment should be available for people struggling with addiction. Additionally, those serving time for non-violent drug offenses should be pardoned.

Create the new new deal. Our infrastructure gets a grade of D from the Society of Civil Engineers. The government should invest billions in rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, schools, levees, airports etc. There’s no reason why we can’t have the world’s #1 infrastructure.

Create the renewable energy revolution. Scientists are sounding the alarm on climate change. In order to avoid the worst case scenario and a dystopian future we need a massive green revolution. It’s time to drastically and immediately move away from fossil fuels and develop the technologies of the future. This will be a giant boon to both the private and public sector, as well as a necessary response to a global crisis. We can and we must be #1 in sustainable energy production in the world.

Block the TPP and all outsourcing deals that will further damage the middle-class. As a result of NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China and the WTO, Americans have lost millions of decent paying jobs. It’s time to end the race to the bottom and renegotiate these rigged deals that only benefit elites. We should not sacrifice our sovereignty, the only people who are allowed to make laws for the United States should be the American people, not multinational corporations.

End Constitutional overreaches. Ban the NSA from bulk data-collection and warrantless spying. Shut down Guantanamo Bay and all extrajudicial prisons. Prosecute torturers and those who violated the Geneva Conventions, Nuremberg Tribunal, International law and US law. Return habeas corpus and due process. Pardon whistleblowers like Edward Snowden. We shouldn’t be leading from behind on human rights, we must be the home of liberty. We should practice the values we preach.

Ban arming human rights violators. We recently gave Saudi Arabia billions in weapons and watched the civilian death toll in their vicious bombing campaign in Yemen tick up. We continue sending Egypt arms as they violently crack down on peaceful protesters. Israel received $38 billion in aid and promptly announced new settlements. The first step to peace is not enabling nations who regularly violate international law. We must be bold enough to stand up to human rights violators who aren’t just our enemies, but our allies. We don’t weaken our allies by holding them accountable, we strengthen them.

Enact common-sense gun regulation. 92% of Americans want expanded background checks, 54% want a ban on assault weapons, and 54% want a ban on high capacity magazines. This should be implemented along with a federal gun buyback program to cut down on the 300+ million firearms in circulation. Over 30,000 Americans die every year from gun violence, including over 10,000 homicides. The time to act is now to address this public health crisis.

Ensure paid vacation time, sick time, maternity leave, childcare. The United States is one of just three countries in the world that doesn’t offer paid maternity leave, the others being Oman and Papua New Guinea. We are the only industrialized nation that doesn’t offer paid vacation time. This should be changed immediately.

Abolish the death penalty. Humans are fallible, we’ll never get the right answer 100% of the time. 4% of the people on death row are not guilty of a crime and have been wrongly convicted. A system that puts innocent people to death is indefensible and should be reformed. We want justice for the American people but killing innocent people on death row is the exact opposite.

Defend and protect women’s rights. We support the Paycheck Fairness Act. We oppose Republican cuts to Planned Parenthood and women’s health clinics all across the country. In 2016 alone, 60 TRAP laws targeting abortion were passed in 19 states. We will vigorously oppose all efforts to dismantle reproductive rights.
‘Living within our means’ makes no economic sense. Labour is right to oppose it | Ha-Joon Chang
It may sound like common sense, but this platitude has no place in 21st-century economics – as John McDonnell appears to understand
By Ha-Joon Chang

He has to start by doing another U-turn on the statement: “We accept we are going to have to live within our means, and we always will do – full stop.

Because this is simply wrong. This view assumes that our means are given, and we cannot spend beyond them. However, our means in the future are partly determined by what we do today. And if our means are not fixed, then the very idea of living within them loses its meaning.

For example, if you borrow money to do a degree or get a technical qualification, you will be spending beyond your means today. But your new qualification will increase your future earning power. Your future means will be greater than they would have been if you hadn’t taken out the loan. In this case, living beyond your means is the right thing to do.

Like individuals, of course, a government can increase its means in the long run by borrowing to invest in things that will make the economy more productive, and thus increase the tax revenue. If a government invests in improving the transport system, it will make the country’s logistics industry more efficient. Or if it invests in healthcare and education, that will make the workers more productive.

this is from a while back but the fundamentals are what you need to know if you are to counter the ‘common sense’ notion that a government has to balance it’s books like a household. pertinent now with labour’s manifesto being released.


Queen Maxima’s foreign visits → Turkey, 2007

3 years after her last visit to Turkey, Maxima returned to the country for a full State Visit alongside her husband and Queen Beatrix. She repeated many of the same activities, including visits to the Ataturk Mausoleum and the Blue Mosque, and a cruise on the Bosphorus River. Although it may have seemed premature to make a repeat visit to a country, the two nations have strong connections. There is a large Turkish community in the Netherlands, Turkey is the Netherlands’ fourth largest trading partner outside of Europe, and the Dutch government has invested heavily in Turkey. The itinerary was designed to promote relations but it was quite low key, as Maxima was close to 7 months pregnant with her third child at the time. With that in mind she spent most of her time participating in sit down meetings with young people promoting inter-cultural dialogue, politicians, CEOs of Dutch businesses in the country, and members of the Dutch community in Turkey. 

in 2064 temperatures have risen an average 2.6°C and summer seems to last a little longer every year. the south pacific saw a heatwave that lasted almost six months in 2060. fish stocks are migrating toward the poles and the sea levels are rising.

climate change has seen government investment in arcology technologies which have created wealth segregated fortified suburbs that are strictly climate controlled, heavily policed and massively wasteful in terms of energy expenditure but “self sufficient”.

With Just $10 "You're Wealthier Than 25% Of Americans"

Last week Credit Suisse released its annual Global Wealth Report.

The big headline grabber was their analysis showing that the top 1% of people now own 50% of the world’s wealth.

That is true and rather astonishing.

However, the report had another finding that was even more astonishing and largely overlooked.

What they found was that, as a percentage of the world’s population, there are now more poor people in the United States and Europe than there are in China.

Shown here, along the left side of the graph you can see that 10% and 20% of the world’s poorest are in North America and Europe.

Here, they aren’t talking about income. They define poor as lacking ‘wealth’, i.e. taking into account assets and liabilities like cash and debt.

Credit Suisse estimates that half of the world has a net worth less than $3,210. And a large chunk of Americans and Europeans can’t make that cut because their net worth is negative.

That’s especially the case for young people these days, who graduate from university with an incredibly expensive degree and an average of $35,000 in student debt.

Of course, plenty of people are in debt up to their eyeballs in the Land of the Free, and not just student debt.

Debt has become the American Way. People go deeply into debt that they can’t afford to buy stuff they don’t need to impress people they don’t know, simply because everyone is doing it.

And it’s just so damn easy.

Keep reading

After seven years of failure, the Conservatives have no plan to fix the housing crisis - John Healey

John Healey MP, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Housing, commenting on new statistics showing that the number of government-funded social rented homes has fallen by 97 per cent since 2010, said:

“These disastrous figures show that Conservative Ministers have washed their hands of any responsibility to build the homes families on low and middle incomes need. The number of government-funded social rented homes built has plummeted by 97 per cent since 2010.

“After seven years of failure, the Conservatives have no plan to fix the housing crisis. A Labour government would invest in the affordable homes that the country needs.”

Can people use telepathy in your setting?

How, exactly, does telepathy work?
>Does the telepath hear the thoughts as though they were spoken?
>Do they see the words as though they were written?
>Do they glean the gist of the thoughts, but not the exact phrasing?
>Can a telepath be blind or deaf?
>>Do they get the thoughts in another way, or are they incapable of being telepaths?
>>If they are incapable of being telepaths, has anyone ever intentionally blinded or deafened a telepath in order to get rid of their ability?
>Can telepaths only get current thoughts, or can they look/listen through past thoughts as well?
>Is there anything a person can do to prevent a telepath from hearing their thoughts?
>Can telepaths interact with peoples’ minds other than just hearing them?
>>Can they put thoughts in another’s head?
>>>Would the other person hear these in a different voice, or would it come to them in the tone they think in naturally?
>>Can they manipulate, destroy, or add memories?
>Does telepathy come naturally to telepaths, or is it something that needs to be worked at and honed?
>Is there anything a telepath can do to keep from hearing others’ thoughts?
>Is their ability always “on”, or do they have to expend efforts to hear/read thoughts?

Does the government have any invested interest in using telepaths for any purposes?
>Against the telepath’s will, or as gainful employment?
>Do they wish to create a literal thought-police department?

What are the public’s thoughts and feelings about telepaths and telepathy in general?

I literally sat through a lecture on friday about government investment in public works that would save human lives (i.e. transportation infrastructure, healthcare) and how you evaluate the monetary amount that’s “worth it” to invest in saving human life 

anonymous asked:

I want to ask that..Im coming to Paris for holiday trip, but I'm a little scared that people say French people doesn't want to speak English, so Is it true? and if it's true how can i communicate them:D I can't speak French.

Some will speak English, some won’t. I think there is definitely a change ongoing - especially in the younger generation. A lot of French people are seeing their peers from other European countries grow language-wise, while for many their own highschool or university education does not provide them with the right measures to get a grasp on the English language.

Please keep in mind that the reputation of French people being unable to speak English is maintained by a government not investing in adequate language education. A lot of French people (especially the ones who have spent limited time in other countries) feel insecure about their own English level and will therefore refuse to speak it, rather than having a snobby attitude towards the English language itself.

Senior doctors accuse Government of deliberately underfunding NHS to accelerate privatisation plans

The government is deliberately underfunding the NHS in an attempt to speed up its plans to privatise the health service, senior doctors have said.

Members of the British Medical Association (BMA) accused Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, of “consciously” creating a crisis in NHS hospitals while scapegoating doctors “to distract the public from an underfunded service under severe and intense strain”.

This is “in order to accelerate its transformation plans for private sector takeover of healthcare in England”, said the motion passed by representatives at the union’s annual representative meeting in Bournemouth.

Dr Chaand Nagpaul, the incoming BMA chair, said the Government’s policy is “deliberate and it does need to be challenged”.

“The Government speaks of new investment but in the same breath asks us to make £3 of efficiency savings for every £1 spent,” he said, adding: “In the name of safety and quality, austerity and savage cuts have to stop.”

The Department of Health rejected the claims, saying Government funding for the NHS was at record levels and the motion approved by the BMA “sadly has no relationship with reality”.

Doctors voted in favour of the motion as it was revealed the Government is pushing forward with plans to sell off an NHS staffing agency that employs more than 90,000 people, saving the health service £70m a year.

The agency, NHS Professionals, supplies staff more cheaply than private firms. It is a private limited company owned by the Department of Health.

Last winter was the worst on record for the health service, with reports of patients waiting for hours on trolleys in overstretched A&E departments around the country.

Dr Nagpaul, currently chair of the organisation’s GP committee, said the general election was a “wake-up call” and called Ms May’s failure to enlarge her majority a public rejection of austerity.

“We are a rich nation, we are a civilised society, the public deserve a safe, civilised health service. We cannot and must not accept anything less,” he said.

“Those that provide care are scapegoated, such as the Prime Minister’s shameless attempt this year to blame GPs for hospital winter pressures.”

However some other doctors, including current BMA council chair Dr Mark Porter, disagreed with the motion, saying the difficulties faced by the health service are a result of bad organisation rather than a deliberate attempt to pave the way for further privatisation.

Dr Grant Ingrams, a GP, told the meeting the current state of the NHS is not due to “political conspiracy, but is due to political cock-ups”, with Dr Porter suggesting government “incompetence” was behind recent failings.

Opening the meeting, Dr Porter warned patients are being “belittled and bewildered” as access to NHS care is worsening.

A survey conducted by the BMA ahead of the conference found that 82 per cent of people are worried about the future of the NHS, and three in five said they expect the NHS to get worse in the coming years.

Three quarters of those surveyed said they thought the number of services on offer will be reduced and 83 per cent said they believed that waiting times would increase.

A Department of Health spokesperson said: “While of course there are pressures on the front line, the Government has invested record funding in the NHS. Thanks to the hard work of staff, public satisfaction is now the highest it has been in all but three of the last 20 years.”