income per capita

youtube

Lee Kuan Yew, prime minister of Singapore for over 30 years, died in March 2015. The nation went into mourning. 16-year-old Amos Yee, however, made the video you see above.

In it, he calls Yew a dictator, calls him out for suing critics, and argues that his reputation for building a successful Singapore is undeserved. The video says that despite Singapore being famous for its high per-capita income, Singaporeans work the longest hours and suffer the greatest inequality in the world, have the highest poverty rate among developed nations, and have the highest tax rate with respect to earnings. And yet the politicians are the highest-paid in the world. “… And whenever somebody wonders online if the government is pocketing the money for themselves, they get sued.” Maybe it’s not a huge surprise, then, that its citizens are among the unhappiest in the world.

Amos does not offer this critique subtly. That is not the teenage way. “Lee Kuan Yew is dead. Finally!” he begins. “Why hasn’t anyone said, ‘Fuck yeah! The guy is dead’? Lee Kuan Yew was a horrible person.” Later: “All day, you see 24-hour news coverage of necrophiliacs sucking Lee Kuan Yew’s dick.” He concludes with: “He should have committed suicide himself. You know why he didn’t? Because if he did, his band of sycophants who have been voraciously sucking his oblong dick might despise him, and his oh-so-great reputation which he so desperately tried to uphold might shatter because it would be deemed quite controversial … Lee Kuan Yew. An overrated, over-glorified person, a dictator exceptionally Machiavellian in nature. Good riddance, Lee Kuan Yew. I neither hope – and neither will you – rest in peace. But now with his death and upcoming elections next year, there is a high chance that with us citizens of Singapore, things can finally change for the better.”

Yee was arrested and ultimately jailed for the video.

When Making Fun Of World Leaders Gets You Thrown In Jail

4 Reasons Independence Is the Right Path for Puerto Rico

By Maru Gonzalez

Puerto Rico is in a state of emergency. Its public debt, which Governor Garcia Padilla recently declared unpayable, is $73 billion and counting. Unemployment is hovering at a dismal 14 percent and 46 percent of the island’s inhabitants are living below the poverty line, a rate higher than that of any state on the mainland.

Puerto Rico’s recent surge in out-migration is also cause for concern. Spurred largely by the economic crisis, a historic exodus of residents to the mainland translates to a shrinking tax base which, in turn, puts additional strain on an already weakened economy and burdens those remaining on the island with higher taxes and dwindling resources.

Although a variety of suggestions have been proposed to save the island from default, here are four reasons a clearly articulated, multi-year transition to independence is the only long-term viable solution for Puerto Rico.

1. Puerto Rico’s serious and worsening economy is largely rooted in its colonial status.

As a U.S. colony, Puerto Rico’s insolvent municipalities and public corporations cannot declare bankruptcy. And because Puerto Rico is not independent, it is prohibited from seeking help from international financial institutions, leaving it with few options in the face of what seems like inevitable default. Yet while the right to declare bankruptcy is important in helping the island restructure its mounting debt, it is only part of a short-term solution to a crisis that is, at its core, deeply structural.

Puerto Rico’s economy is both limited by and dependent on Washington. Constrained by U.S. federal laws and regulations, the island’s economy lacks the structural capacity to thrive on its own. Puerto Rico has no control over its monetary policy and little control of its fiscal policy. Issues related to immigration, foreign policy and trade are dictated by U.S. law and U.S. regulatory agencies.

Further, because Puerto Rico has no actual representation in Congress, decisions are made with little to no consideration for the needs and general welfare of the island’s residents. Indeed, Puerto Ricans must adhere to laws passed by a government in which they do not participate. Independence would grant Puerto Rico a platform to address the debt crisis on its own terms and afford the island’s 3.5 million inhabitants the right to self-determination.

2. Statehood is a pipe dream.

Economic and cultural arguments aside, statehood has never been a real option for Puerto Rico. Contrary to Alaska and Hawaii, which were deemed “incorporated” territories with the intention of moving toward annexation to the Union, the decision to keep Puerto Rico as “unincorporated” was a ploy to avoid statehood.

Indeed, Puerto Rico’s status as an unincorporated territory means that it “belongs to, but is not part of the U.S.” And that is unlikely to change. A Republican-controlled Congress would never admit Puerto Rico — with its massive debt and overwhelmingly Democratic (and non-white, Spanish-speaking) voting base — into the Union, even if such a determination is made by the island’s residents.

3. Other nations have proved that independence is possible.

For far too long, the people of Puerto Rico have chosen to accept the comfort of a familiar yet broken status quo over the uncertainty of real, revolutionary change. Indeed, many on the island and in the diaspora adhere to a colonized mentality, one that believes an independent Puerto Rico is economically unsustainable. But liberated nations across Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America have demonstrated otherwise.

Singapore is a prime example. With a size 14 times smaller than Puerto Rico, less natural resources, and a significantly higher population density, Singapore has thrived socially and economically since gaining independence — even exceeding the per capita income of the United States.

4. An independent Puerto Rico would more readily protect the welfare and the rights of its people than the United States.

Since the U.S. invasion of Puerto Rico in 1898, Washington’s relationship with Puerto Rico has been one of exploitation and convenience. From the Ponce Massacre and government-sanctioned programs aimed at forcibly sterilizing working class Puerto Rican women to unethical testing and human radiation experiments on Puerto Rican prisoners, the U.S. government has a shameful track record of transgressions on the island.

And let’s not forget Vieques: for more than 60 years the U.S. Navy used the island of Vieques as target practice. Though the bombings stopped in 2003, the U.S.’ legacy on Vieques continues in the form of destroyed land (over half the island is uninhabitable), shattered livelihoods, and increased rates of cancer, birth defects, and illnesses — the result of contamination from years of continuous bombings.

Yet because Puerto Rico lacks any real autonomy or representation, these and other travesties — both social and economic — are largely ignored. Independence would hold accountable elected representatives at all levels of government and restore power to the people

When did we stop being a “military power?” We’re still #1 in military power! You know what we’re not number one in?

- Infant mortality

- Income per capita (good jobs)

- Math

- Literacy

- Healthcare

- Entrepreneurship

-  Press freedom

- International trade

- Freedom from corruption

- Life expectancy

- GDP

And on and on and on. Meanwhile, we spend a third of the world’s defense budget just by ourselves, and Republicans want to increase it even more, while saber-rattling at China, Russia, and Iran. It’s only a matter of time before our inept leadership drags the United States into another war. 

anonymous asked:

First of all, hello. I came about your blog, and your political stance, and while I won't even try to change it, I take it as a personal insult to me, my family, my culture and the thounsands of deaths it suffered, and feel morally obliged, as a citicen of my country (Venezuela) to at least ask one question: Given that you are living in a thriving, non-socialist country (Sweeden, I recall), what are your views on how the ideas you advocate completely and absolutetly destroyed mine?

I won’t even try to change your political stance, but I take it as a personal insult to me, my family, my culture and the millions of deaths it has caused, and I feel morally obliged, as a citizen of my country (Sweden) to at least ask one question: Given that you are living in a non-capitalist country (Venezuela, I recall), what are your views on how the ideas you advocate completely and absolutely destroyed mine? Do you know how many homeless people there are in Sweden, even when we have empty homes available for all of them?

I joke, obviously. But what are your thoughts on the Bengal Famine of 1943, which cased over 2 million deaths in capitalist India, under the rule of the capitalist UK?

Or was this not capitalism’s fault? Then how is the poverty of Venezuela socialism’s fault? Why are supporters of capitalism allowed to say “Socialism is a nice thought, but it doesn’t work as proven by the poverty in Venezuela,” but I’m not allowed to say “Capitalism is a nice thought, but it just doesn’t work as proven by the reign of terror of Napoleon.”?

Or the Atlantic Slave Trade and the genocide of Native Americans.

Or colonialism and the devastation of the global south.

Or Hitler and Mussolini, who whilst saying they were anti-capitalist in order to garner support from the working class, still implemented capitalistic free-market economies, even supplying private capitalists with slave labour.

Or the Lebanon Crisis.

Or the Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba.

Or the Vietnam War.

Or the Invasion of Grenada.

Or the CIA’s 1953 Iranian coup d'état where the US overthrew a democratically elected socialist (Mohammad Mosaddegh) in favour of an authoritarian dictator (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi).

Or the CIA’s 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état where the US overthrew a democratically elected social democrat (Jacobo Árbenz) in favour of an authoritarian dictator (Carlos Castillo Armas).

Or the CIA’s 1973 Chilean coup d'état where the US overthrew a democratically elected socialist (Salvador Allende) in favour of a totalitarian fascist dictator (Augusto Pinochet who went on to kill over 3000 people, torture 30,000 people, and put 80,000 people in concentration camps).

Or the CIA’s 1991 Haitian coup d'état where the US overthrew a democratically elected social democrat (Jean-Bertrand Aristide), who is widely believed to have been the winner of the first honest election in Haiti, in favour of an authoritarian dictator (Raoul Cédras).

Or the fact that the 10 poorest countries in the world are all capitalist (Malawi, Burundi, Central African Republic, Niger, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar, Liberia, the Gambia, Guinea, Somalia). If you don’t like socialist Venezuela, perhaps you’d prefer capitalist Malawi? No? It’s almost as if not all capitalist counties are rich, and not all socialist countries are poor.

I think you get my point. Socialism and capitalism are both economic systems. You can’t blame Venezuela’s poverty on socialism any more than you can blame the Holocaust on capitalism.

By the way, have you been to Uruguay recently?

Uruguay is ranked first in Latin America in democracy, peace, lack of corruption, and is first in South America when it comes to press freedom, size of the middle class and prosperity. It ranks second in the region on income equality, per-capita income and inflows of FDI. Uruguay is the third-best country on the continent in terms of HDI, GDP growth, innovation and infrastructure. It is regarded as a high-income country (top group) by the UN. Nearly 95% of Uruguay’s electricity comes from renewable energy. Same-sex marriage and abortion are legal, leading Uruguay to be regarded as one of the most progressive nations in the world, and one of the most socially developed, outstanding regionally, and ranking highly on global measures of personal rights, tolerance, and inclusion issues.

And they are… GASP! SOCIALIST! Like… Like VENEZUELA?

In fact, Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Guyana, Nicaragua, and Suriname are also socialist. But the only one people who advocate for capitalism ever talk about is Venezuela. I wonder why? 🤔

In all seriousness, I don’t want to come across as rude. It’s just that I hear this argument a lot. If you still live in Venezuela, I genuinely hope that either the situation there gets better, or that you get out of the country. Regardless of what you may think, I don’t want anyone living in poverty. Not in Venezuela, and not in Sweden, and not in the US. Take care of yourself.

anonymous asked:

Are the Manderlys richer than the Starks? What are Winterfell's and Whiteharbours incomes?

I doubt that the Manderlys are richer than the Starks, since the Starks get income from the entire North in addition to from the Manderlys, so they’re taxing 3.5-4 million people rather than a hundred thousand or so. And even though the per-capita income of the Manderly’s subjects is way higher than the rest of the North, it’s not enough to outweigh the Stark’s manpower advantage.

I did a rough estimate of Great House incomes here, but let’s try to do some calculations based on the ones I did for the Seven Kingdoms as a whole. The North has 3.5 to 4 million people, and assuming that 90% of them earn around 3-5 dragons a year, we’re talking 10.5-20 million gold a year as the rough GDI of the North.  

Now, medieval taxation thankfully was generally simple (because medieval states lacked the bureaucracy to get fancy) so we’ll be using the English “tenth” (i.e, a 10% tax on moveable property and income) as our model. That would suggest that the North generates 1-2 million in tax revenue. Now, a good part of that goes to the King, but the Starks probably keep the bulk of it. 

Now, the North is considerably less fertile and prosperous than the rest of Westeros, so we might want to start with the low range for peasant income and then adjust further. So if the North is half as prosperous as the average, then the North has a GDI of 5.25 million and produces 525,000 gold in tax revenue. If we say it’s two-thirds, then we’re talking a GDI of 7 million and 700,000 in tax revenue. 

The Manderly’s income is a bit harder to figure out, because we don’t have a firm number on their total populaiton - we know that White Harbor has 50,000 people living in it, but we also know that the Manderlys control a broad swathe of territory beyond just the city and  have a higher per capita GDI than the rest of the North between their silver and their artisans. I would say that at a minimum, the population of White Harbor brings in 15,000 golden dragons to the Manderlys just on the regular tenth, not counting taxes and fees coming in from the port. 

The IMF, which is sort of an off-shoot of the US Treasury Department, has had a shattering effect in Latin America. Its programs have been followed more rigorously in Latin America than any other part of the world outside of Sub-Saharan Africa, and they’ve been a disaster. So take say Bolivia. They’ve been following IMF policies for 25 years, and at the end per-capita income is lower than it was in the beginning. Argentina was the poster-child of the IMF. It was marvelous, it was doing all the things right, they were urging everyone else to follow the same policies, same for the World Bank and the US Treasury Department. Well what happened is it led to a total economic catastrophe.
—  Noam Chomsky

anonymous asked:

Wow scrutinize on my choice of vocabulary why don't you. I'm not saying to not let refugees in im just saying think of the economy, infrastructure, housing ect.. How is our already fragile economy going to support hundreds of thousands of refugees?

Heyyy, look who’s back?  The Anon from a couple of weeks ago that tried to claim that refugees=terrorists.  You remember, the one that we schooled?

Well, apparently when he sent us a message that said absolutely fuck-all about the economy, infastructure, housing, etc. we should have known he was referring to concerns he had about how refugees would impact the economy, infastructure, housing, etc.!  How rude of us to not understand this!  SO! SORRY!

OK then, let’s get down to it: “how is our already fragile economy going to support hundreds of thousands of refugees?”  Your exact words, Anon.

Well, we don’t know what country you’re in, Anon, but we’re going to take a wild guess that it’s one of the largest, strongest economies in the world.  You know - the U.S., Germany, the U.K., France, Canada, Australia, etc. Obviously, the strongest, largest, economies in the world = the ones best-equipped to absorb the costs of taking in refugees.  Which is only fair, given the extent that their economies & their companies have profited from colonialism and resource extraction that destabilized most of the countries refugees are fleeing from in the first place.  

Still, there are limits to everything and how many refugees can these countries take in before the “economic burden” is simply too much?  The problem with this question is the a priori assumption that refugees = economic burden.

A study of the economic impact of 270,000 Somali refugees in just one province in Kenya (which = about 10% of the total population in that province) found that 25% of that province’s per-capita income came as a direct result of these refugees, who bought $3 million worth of livestock & milk alone & whose money created jobs for 1200 local people.  Overall, that one province benefited to the tune of $14 million by hosting those refugees.  10% of the population generating 25% of the per-capita income.  That`s what refugees did to the economy there. 

Or look at Miami - a city that suddenly had to take in 80,000 Cuban refugees in 1980.  Practically overnight, that city’s population jumped 5%.  80,000 Cubans arrived with only as much as they could carry.  Economic disaster?  Actually, economists who looked at this found that there was no negative impact on the economy @ all!  Unemployment stayed the same, wages didn’t go down - nothing that you’d think might happen.  Because those 80,000 needed goods & services to start their lives.  Refugees & immigrants buy more than other people, because they need to set up their homes, etc.  That = a bump for the economy!

Australia has discovered that refugees create a economic net benefit as soon as a year after arrival, depending on their human capital.
 
Sweden is happily discovering that 37% of the Syrian refugees it is taking in already have university degrees.  What does it mean to a country to wake up and suddenly have 11,000 university-educated people with global connections and serious motivations to start working or developing businesses?  Economically, it means very, very good things, Anon.

If you are right and the wealthiest countries in the world would be devastated economically by taking in refugees then Germany - which took in more refugees than any EU country and certainly more than Australia, Canada, or the U.S. combined - should be doing really poorly economically right now.  Yet here it is in 2016, still the strongest economy in the EU and the 4th-strongest in the world.  It`s almost as if Germany is counting on refugees to save them from a real economic problem - workers retiring/aging out of the workforce faster than they can be replaced.

Maybe these facts and words are difficult for you to understand, Anon. Try watching this, then.








Never Forget Your Beginner’s Spirit

I’ve never been an open book, but I thought I’d share a chapter today.
It was both awkward and accurate to say that we didn’t have very much money when my family came to America. My father spent most of it buying a very used Oldsmobile and he worked double shifts until he made enough to send for my mother and I.

We ate a lot of rice porridge and vienna sausages. Sunday was the only day we ate meat unless it was payday.

If you were to look up my hometown, you’d realize that the median income for a household in the city was $26,704 (versus $48,259 for the rest of Texas), and the median income for a family was $34,543. It’s easy to write off Wharton, Texas as another Trump breeding ground, but as with most things it’s never just black or white.

The per capita income for Wharton is $13,993. About 17.3% of families and 22.2% of the population are below the poverty line, including 22.3% of those under age 18 and 21.7% of those age 65 or over. A quarter of the city is living UNDER the poverty line! The funny thing is, we didn’t know we were poor. At least I didn’t. To me being poor didn’t mean a life of misery, it just meant we didn’t have any money. Just like everyone else we knew.

Homelessness is an issue politicians love to tackle because almost anyone from any background can participate; you’ve got moral high ground because hey, at least you have a roof over your head. But poverty? Poverty carries a deep sense of shame and it has many shades. No one acknowledged they were poor, even when the Census Bureau is telling you otherwise.

Even as I type this, with a successful business that I built with my co-founder Andrew and a small but close-knit set of friends by my side, I still feel the fear of falling back in all the time. I live in San Francisco now, a city with one of the highest incomes and displays of wealth in the entire world and it doesn’t make me feel any more secure. I used to buy clothes to try and tell the world but mostly myself that it’s ok. “You’re in the clear.” But I don’t feel like I’ve made it. To me, having things and having my needs met just meant they could be lost if I stopped being careful.

There’s an origin story about the famous Russian fighter Fedor Emelianenko which I consciously adopted as a mindset during my teenage years.

Emelianenko has stated his driving force for winning fights was: “Years ago we hardly had anything to eat. Now I earn more money and I see every opponent as a man that tries to put me back to that poorer period. That man has to be eliminated.” and about his state of mind before a fight: “When I walk into a fight, I’m trying not to think about anything; collect myself and concentrate. And going into a fight, I don’t feel any emotions, neither anger nor compassion. I don’t emotionalize. I’m going into a fight with a clear mind… During the fight, my senses dim and basically I don’t feel any pain.”

Making it wasn’t about being famous, it was about survival. It steeled me against the blows of corporate America and this tenaciousness has been the fuel I’ve survived off for a very long time. But this armor has gotten too heavy over the years.

The thing about small towns is that everything outside of it is an abstraction. This election year has bubbled it all to the surface. Suddenly the poor have a voice. Powerless yet still proud. That’s been the theme across many towns like mine and has been for generations.

The only way I even found out we were poor was when I was a young boy near Christmas time, I was in Eckerd’s pharmacy store and I asked my father if I could have these knockoff G.I. Joe action figures for Christmas. I thought I was doing him a favor by not going with the name brand stuff, and he softly said that he couldn’t afford it. I was so confused, I’d gotten gifts during past Christmases, surely this was trivial. Wiping bratty tears away, I let it go but the memory has always stayed with me.

Around the time we arrived in Texas, a group of retired teachers volunteered and were assigned immigrant families like ours to teach the basics of the English language. This made all the difference in my life and taught me the value of generosity. I remember when my father left to work in Taiwan for a few years, I had to sign the checks for the utility bills because my mother could not.

Eventually I’d go to college. When I graduated, I left Texas and moved out west with little money and almost no possessions. I smile when I think about how similar my beginnings were to my father’s. One of the few possessions I owned was a very small square photograph of my grandfather as a boy with his family that I kept pinned on a bare wall. It’s unclear how they afforded it, but I keep it to remind me where I came from.

anonymous asked:

Why are you so against socialism when the worlds most socialist countries (Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden) shit on the United States in pretty much every way; economically, citizen happiness and life satisfaction.... Would love to hear a genuine answer to this.

Unfortunately, you are dead wrong and quoting ridiculous talking points. 

Moreover, there is a group of people that believes the Danes are lying when they say they’re the happiest people on the planet. This group is known as “Danes.”

“Over the years I have asked many Danes about these happiness surveys — whether they really believe that they are the global happiness champions — and I have yet to meet a single one of them who seriously believes it’s true,” Booth writes. “They tend to approach the subject of their much-vaunted happiness like the victims of a practical joke waiting to discover who the perpetrator is.”

-

In addition to paying enormous taxes — the total bill is 58 percent to 72 percent of income — Danes have to pay more for just about everything. Books are a luxury item. Their equivalent of the George Washington Bridge costs $45 to cross. Health care is free — which means you pay in time instead of money. Services are distributed only after endless stays in waiting rooms. (The author brought his son to an E.R. complaining of a foreign substance that had temporarily blinded him in one eye and was turned away, told he had to make an appointment.) Pharmacies are a state-run monopoly, which means getting an aspirin is like a trip to the DMV.

Other Scandinavian countries (Booth defines the term broadly, to include Nordic brethren Iceland and Finland in addition to Denmark, Sweden and Norway) raise other questions about how perfect the nearly perfect people really are. Iceland’s famous economic boom turned out to be one of history’s most notorious real estate bubbles. A common saying in Denmark about Icelanders: They wear shoes that are too big for them, and they keep tripping over the shoelaces.

The success of the Norwegians — the Beverly Hillbillies of Europe — can’t be imitated. Previously a peasant nation, the country now has more wealth than it can spend: Colossal offshore oil deposits spawned a sovereign wealth fund that pays for everything.

Finland, which tops the charts in many surveys (they’re the least corrupt people on Earth, its per-capita income is the highest in Western Europe and Helsinki often tops polls of the best cities), is also a leader in categories like alcoholism, murder (highest rate in Western Europe), suicide and antidepressant usage.

-

The suicide rate is 50 percent higher than in the US and more than double the UK rate. Party guests, even at upscale gatherings, report that, around 11:30 at night, things often take a fighty turn.

http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/sorry-liberals-scandinavian-countries-arent-utopias/

http://www.amazon.com/Scandinavian-Unexceptionalism-Third-Way-Socialism-Political/dp/025536704X

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/scandinavia-isnt-a-socialist-paradise/

http://www.libsdebunked.com/socialism/scandinavian-socialism-argument/

5

Hamilton, Iowa
Population: 130

“The median income for a household in the city was $37,083, and the median income for a family was $46,250. Males had a median income of $29,375 versus $30,000 for females. The per capita income for the city was $42,935. There were 5.1% of families and 10.5% of the population living below the poverty line, including 9.1% of under eighteens and 11.1% of those over 64.”

anonymous asked:

What's wrong with Israel?

literally everything? “”israel“” is the stolen land of palestine? “”israel“” kills thousands of people, most of them civilians (a lot of them are children), they demolish people’s homes, imprison the innocent. palestians’ movements are restricted by the israelis. palestinians literally have no human rights or whatsoever?

here are some statistics:

“The majority of these [Palestinian] children were killed and injured while going about normal daily activities, such as going to school, playing, shopping, or simply being in their homes. Sixty-four percent of children killed during the first six months of 2003 died as a result of Israeli air and ground attacks, or from indiscriminate fire from Israeli soldiers.”

- Catherine Cook

“With no shooting from the Palestinian side, and often little or no use of tear gas to disperse the protests, Israeli soldiers have repeatedly fired live ammunition into unarmed crowds.”

- Shoot to Maim

“Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing the amounts provided to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War ll. Total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $140 billion in 2003 dollars. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one-fifth of America’s entire foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year. This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain.”

- John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt
“The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”

“Aside from the core issues—refugees, Jerusalem, borders—the major themes reflected in the U.N. resolutions against Israel over the years are its unlawful attacks on its neighbors; its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, including deportations, demolitions of homes and other collective punishments; its confiscation of Palestinian land; its establishment of illegal settlements; and its refusal to abide by the U.N. Charter and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.”

- Donald Neff

“Since the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory in 1967, more than 800,000 Palestinians have been detained under Israeli military orders in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt). This number constitutes approximately 20 percent of the total Palestinian population in the oPt and as much as 40 percent of the total male Palestinian population… 8,000 Palestinian children have been arrested since 2000.”

- Addameer

“Any humanitarian looking at the sheer number of innocent civilians who have lost their homes can only condemn Israel’s house demolition policy as a hugely disproportionate military response by an occupation army… It is a policy that creates only hardship and bitterness, and in the end can only undermine hope for future reconciliation and peace.”

- Peter Hansen, Commissioner General of UNRWA

“Roughly 30,000 Gazans lost jobs because of last summer’s July-August conflict, according to Frode Mauring, the U.N. Development Program’s special representative for Gaza and the West Bank. The war cost Gaza $200 million in economic losses, causing the Palestinian economy to contract for the first time since 2006, the International Monetary Fund said in late January.”

- Huffington Post

these statistics were last updated on june 26th, 2015
source: (x)

last year, on july 8th, israel attacked gaza for 50 days straight
here are some statistics:

palestinians killed: 2139
palestinian children killed: 490
israeli soldiers killed: 64
israeli civilians killed: 6
israeli children killed: 1
palestinians wounded: 11000
palestinian children wounded: 3000
gaza residents displaced: up to 500000
homes destroyed in gaza: 20000

source: (x)

and if you want to know more about the attack on gaza last year you should read this

here’s some articles about israelis watching gaza being attacked as if it’s a movie night: (x), (x) and (x)

now let’s also watch a lil video about what israelis are teaching their children:

- mariam

Fear and Loathing in Chiraq

One of Caleb’s favorite things to do when he visits a new city is to find a place where all of the “locals” eat. This is usually a pretty safe bet because he mainly travels to Asian cities for work, and Asian cities, on a whole, are not that dangerous — for an adult male, at least. I want to make a funny joke about ninjas but I can’t think of any.

This morning, he landed in Chicago for a trade show, and immediately headed to the South Side, where he had read that one of the best barbecue joints in the city is located.

I called him a few minutes ago to say hello, and he didn’t pick up the phone. A few minutes later, he called me back. “Hey!” I said.

“Hey,” he whispered. “I’m shaking.”

“You’re what?” I asked.

“I’m shaking.”

“Why?”

“Dude,” he said. “The South Side is not safe.”

“Duh,” I reminded him.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve heard some controversy about Spike Lee’s new film, “Chiraq” — a title which, if you haven’t read about it, implies that the South Side of the city, sometimes called the “Murder Capital of America,” is a war zone akin to Iraq. This has pissed off a number of people, and as far I can tell, spawned a number of fawning and revisionist rebuttals. Even the Wikipedia page for “Crime in Chicago” contains phrases like, “crime rate in Chicago has been the subject of substantial hyperbole.”

In 2012, there were more homicides in Chicago than there were U.S. troop killings in Afghanistan.

Keep reading

4

Can the Indian Super League wake a sleeping giant?

By Greg Lea

An initial glance at the latest FIFA World Rankings yields few surprises: world champions Germany sit top while Argentina, the runners-up in Brazil, are second. However, as you scroll further down the list, one name sticks out above all others. Way down in 158th place, below Puerto Rico, Curacao and Kyrgyzstan, are India.

In Soccernomics, Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski argue that population, football experience and per capita income are the best indicators of the strength of a national side. With 1.2 billion people and the world’s tenth largest economy, India – all set for the launch of the Indian Super League on Sunday – are undoubtedly the planet’s biggest underachievers.

Keep reading