Category Archives: Ron Paul

A brief 9-track collaborative release from Harlem rapper Camron and Canadian DJ A-Trak, U Wasnt There successfully evokes a now-antiquated era of hip-hop that dominated New York City during the early aughts, typified by the splashy sonic and visual aesthetics of the larger-than-life rap collective the Diplomats. But while the project boasts a consistent production palette that faithfully replicates Dipsets stadium-sized soundwith their namesake even alluded to on the triumphant closer Dipshitsit also serves little practicality beyond providing its central performer one more low-stakes opportunity to relive his past glory days.

Camron is content to take a victory lap here, often restating his now decades-old accomplishments. On What You Do, he claims that his rsum speaks for itselfhe cursed Bill OReilly out, produced a few movies with Queen Latifah, condemned snitching on national televisionand then proceeds to end his verse on a dated punchline about receiving oral sex from Monica Lewinsky, dulling any impact those previous triumphs may have had.

Camron eventually back-peddled on the snitching remark, and OReillys verbal lashing was far more Damon Dashs doing than Killah Cams. The former co-founder of Roc-A-Fella Records makes three separate (yet all equally overcooked) appearances on the albumtwo DJ Khaled-esque spoken-word outros and a never-ending skitwhere his grandiose assertions about his friendship with Cam are so po-faced they lack any real sense of camaraderie.

This brand of dour bravado, thankfully, isnt an issue when it comes to Camron, whose reliably daffy, buoyant personality instills a brash flippancy into many of the songs on U Wasnt There. Theres an offhanded charisma to the way he delivers his absurdist punchlines, like how he twists his cadence on the lovesick Cheers and turns a rational explanation of public affectionI liked the picture cause I liked the pictureinto a comically flirtatious gesture.

The rappers tendency to go leftfield with his humor can be both a blessing and an intermittent curse. The wisecracks he sprinkles throughout Ghetto Prophets take the form of either genuine witthe numerical wordplay of she about a seven, so I took her a four-staror cheap payoffs that are beneath him, like the unimaginative sarcasm found in his voice when he grades a dates sexual performance rather poorly (a C plus).

Ghetto Prophets, though, still finds Camron at his most unwavering. His strong-armed flow works in lockstep with the tracks bombastic production; he seems unfazed by everything else going on around him as he muscles on through. Its also notably one of the few moments on U Wasnt There where Camron isnt resting on his laurels, where hes finally able to surpass the low expectations hes set upon himself and his collaborators.

Score:

Excerpt from:
Cam'ron and A-Trak 'U Wasn't There' Review - slantmagazine

Commentary

Public health as a profession has fallen into dispute but it is hardly the only one. The economists bear responsibility too, for it is they who should have been aggressive, open, and loud about every aspect of the pandemic policy response. And yet, they were largely silent as markets were wrecked, Congress blew up the budget, and the Fed flooded the world with newly printed cash to pay the bills.

Every bit of training in economics should have signaled that this was not the right path. And yet all surveys we have from the last 30 months show that most establishment economists had not much to say at all. How to explain this? Its a combination of intellectual failing, cowardice, and careerism.

Today we are paying a very heavy price as economic conditions the world over grow ever worse.

The history of this intellectual apostasy is unerasable. For example, in late March 2020, the IGM Forum at the University of Chicago polled economists nationwide, as they have been on various issues for ten years, concerning the lockdowns. Enough of them acquiesced to the prevailing strategy to make it policy for the national press to announce with confidence that economists are all for these wealth-destroying measures.

Incredibly, and to the everlasting disgrace of all those polled, not one single American economist who was asked was willing to disagree with the following statement: Abandoning severe lockdowns at a time when the recurrence in infections remains high will lead to greater economic damage than sustaining the lockdowns to eliminate resurgent risk.

Fully 80 percent of American economists agreed or strongly agreed. Only 14 percent were uncertain. Not one economist polled disagreed or had no opinion. Not one! This allowed Vox to announce triumphantly: Top economists warn ending social distancing too soon would only hurt the economy. Further: There is no evidence of a disjuncture in views between what public health experts think and what economic policy experts think.

It was the same in Europe. Economists polled there were all for this completely destructive, unworkable, and essentially insane policy that had never been tried before to deal with a new virus that we knew then was mostly a threat to people above 70 years of age with comorbidities.

Why was it not obvious that the right approach was to encourage the vulnerable to shelter and otherwise let society function as normal? Anyone who raised such an incredibly obvious question about lockdowns was shouted down. Dont you dare question expert opinion! Look how the economists agree!

Who precisely is on the list of the economists surveyed in this poll? There are eighty of them. You are welcome to have a look at their names and affiliations. You will notice that, without exception among the Americans, they have Ivy League associations.

Now, this is a puzzle. Theres no question that elite opinion was squarely on the side of unprecedented restrictions on the lives of citizens. Did these people study virology? Did they look at the data? Did they know something by virtue of their elite affiliations that the rest of us did not know? Did their models give them special insight into the future?

The answer is surely no in each case. What we have here is a demonstration that even the smartest people are susceptible to the frenzies of political fashion, groupthink, crowd psychology, and mob behavior.

It was clear by late March which way the winds were blowing. And people of a certain status, even if they do not share in the panicked attitudes of people on the street, are savvy enough to know what they are supposed to say and when. They too experience fear; it is a different kind of fear, one for their reputations and professional standing.

The courage to stand up against prevailing winds is rare indeed, even for those who can afford to do so. To be sure, I knew plenty of economists who were against the lockdowns. Donald Boudreaux, David Henderson, Gigi Foster, and a few others wrote articles and said so. Among major public figures, only Ron Paul spoke out from day one. Its true that they were a tiny minority but they did exist. They also took enormous professional risks in daring to defy what quickly emerged as mainstream opinion.

All of which still begs the question of the rationale that the economists gave to justify their destructionist posture. Here is where a remarkable piece by Jayanta Bhattacharya and Mikko Packalen provides great insight.

The first justification concerned the precautionary principle. Here is the idea that in the presence of uncertainty, it is better to be safe than sorry. The principle got a huge boost from the movie Jaws: the police chief was right that they should have closed the beaches given the well-founded worry that a giant shark was on the loose. Those who ignored his advice were responsible for lives lost.

Its not obvious how this principle should lead immediately to lockdowns for COVID. We knew from mid-February that the risk gradients put the danger of this virus squarely on the old and infirm. The data was clear. The virus would become endemic just as all previous ones had, via natural immunity. That was going to happen regardless. You can prevent a shark attack by closing beaches but you cannot make a virus go away by closing economies!

Whats more, the precautionary principle has to apply to policies too. Lets say that we had some uncertainty about the virus. We still had absolute certainty about the consequences of lockdowns. We knew it would lead to business failure, depression, demoralization, capital destruction, supply-chain breakage, and vast loss without precedent. They favored the lockdowns anyway, trading in what they knew for sure with concern for that which they knew almost nothing.

This was highly irresponsible. A consistent application of the precautionary principle would also have assumed the worst about the collateral harms of COVID restrictions, our authors write.

The second justification is even more strange. Based on cell-phone mobility data coming out at the time, economists found a way to say that the lockdowns were really a market response to the virus, not a consequence of government policy. You see, the data showed that people were canceling dinner reservations and trips and generally staying off the highways.

Therefore:

Economists reasoned that the virus, not lockdown, caused economic harm. There was no tradeoff between viral spread and the economy, economists intoned. Lockdowns would stop the virus, and our lockdowns would not impose meaningful costs on society either at home or globally (in spite of the heavily connected global economy), economists reasoned.

Even at this time, I heard friends and colleagues saying these things, much to my astonishment. I knew for sure that it was all incorrect. Yes, some of the loss of mobility reflected virus fears but those fears themselves were irrational and fanned by media hysteria. They might have disappeared in days or weeks but for the forced lockdowns.

In addition, the mobility loss was in part due to public fear about the government response. There had been talk of closures and quarantines since early February. Everyone could see what was going on in China. It was hard to imagine that the same would happen here, but Americans know not to trust the government. We knew they were capable of anything.

Even on March 12, 2020, I was very reluctant to board an Amtrak, not because I thought I might get COVID but rather because I knew for sure that a panicked government had the power to stop the train and put us all in quarantine camps. This fear was legitimate, and a major reason why people stayed home.

This was NOT market workings. It was fear of government and trickery by media that drove the results. As our authors write:

The idea that people would have voluntarily locked anyway is spurious and ignores the grave distributional impacts of lockdowns. A lockdown imposes the same restrictions on everyone, whether or not they can bear the harm. Nevertheless, many economists favored imposing formal lockdowns and shelter-in-place orders rather than offering public health advice.

Of all people, the economists should have known. If they did know, not enough spoke out. The whole scene reminds me of the Prohibition period during which all the leading economists stepped up to defend and rationalize the policy that everyone knew was on its way.

It took more than ten years before it became stunningly obvious how goofed up was that opinion all along, that it completely failed to think through what economists are trained to think about, namely the relationship between means and ends and the tradeoffs involved in every policy decision.

The economists should have been out front in warning ahead of time where lockdown policies would take us. Its a tragic historical fact that they did not.

Why exactly do we pay intellectuals? So that they can use their knowledge and wisdom to provide guidance away from catastrophe and toward a better world. They failed to do so, and here we are.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Follow

View original post here:
As the Economy Collapsed, Why Were Economists Silent? - The Epoch Times

The current monetary system is on its way out.

Even the central bankers running the system can see that.

Thats why they are preparing for what comes next as they attempt to reset the system.

Its important to emphasize that nobody knows what the next international monetary system will look likenot even the elites. However, they know what they want it to look like and are working hard to shape that outcome.

Next, Ill examine their preferred outcome.

The new international monetary system the central bankers would prefer involves central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and the International Monetary Funds Special Drawing Rights (SDR) replacing the US dollar as the worlds new reserve currency.

Despite all the hype, CBDCs are nothing but the same fiat currency scam with a new label on itand zero privacy. They will make it even easier for the government to inflate the currency, and thats what I expect them to do if they impose CBDCs on us.

However, its doubtful CBDCs can save otherwise fundamentally unsound currenciesas I believe all fiat currencies are.

If paper fiat currency is not viable as money, CBDCs are even less viable as they enable the government to engage in even more currency debasement.

Would a CBDC have saved the Zimbabwe dollar, the Venezuelan bolivar, the Argentine peso, or the Lebanese lira?

I dont think so.

And a CBDC wont save the US dollar or the euro either.

But that doesnt mean governments wont try to implement CBDCs out of desperation with immensely destructive consequences for many people.

Then theres the IMF, the quintessential globalist institution that acts as a global central bank. Faceless and unaccountable bureaucrats at the IMF create the SDR out of thin air.

The SDR is simply a basket of other leading fiat currencies. The US dollar currently makes up 42%, the euro 31%, the Chinese renminbi 11%, the Japanese yen 8%, and the British pound 8%.

In other words, the SDR is a fiat currency based on other fiat currencies.

In short, I dont think these gimmicksthe SDR and CBDCsare workable.

On the contrary, they have even worse flaws than the current failing fiat system. Nonetheless, the elites and central bankers are pushing hard for them.

I view it as the desperate last gasps of a dying system.

If CBDCs and the SDR fail to revitalize the fiat systemas I suspect will happenthen the central bankers have only one other option left.

They will have to find a way to restore confidence or risk the entire monetary system disintegrating. That would mean governments losing all their power, which they, of course, prefer to avoid.

If it comes down to thatand theres a good chance that it willgovernments will have no choice but to go back to gold as the foundation of the international monetary system.

Sound money advocate Ron Paul said it best:

What none of them (politicians) will admit is that the market is more powerful than the central banks and all the economic planners put together. Although it may take time, the market always wins.

Heres the bottom line.

Gold is a far better form of money than the rapidly inflating paper and digital currencies that central banks are peddling.

Governments cant force an inferior monetary goodfiat currencyon the whole world forever. Its inevitable economic reality will assert itself. And that moment could be soon.

Central banks and governments are the largest holders of gold in the world. Together they own over 1.1 billion troy ounces of gold out of the 6.6 billion that exist above ground.

This enormous stash of gold acts as a fail-safe option. Governments have it in their back pocket as a Plan B in case theres a monetary emergency and they need to restore confidence.

Central bankers dont want to go back to gold, but they will have no choice if their fiat system collapses, forcing their hands.

There are plenty of signs that governments are increasingly hedging their bets with gold recently.

Take Russia and China, for example. Its no secret that they have been stashing away as much gold as possible for many years.

China is the worlds largest producer and buyer of gold. Russia is number two. Most of that gold finds its way into the Russian and Chinese governments treasuries.

Russia has over 74 million ounces of gold, one of the largest stashes in the world.

Nobody knows Chinas exact amount of goldBeijing is notoriously opaquebut most observers believe it is even larger than Russias stash.

Russia and Chinas gold gives them access to an apolitical neutral form of money with no counterparty risk. Moreover, they can use their gold to engage in international trade and perhaps back the currencies.

Gold represents a genuine monetary alternative to the US dollar, and Russia and China have a lot of it. Moreover, they are already using gold to bypass various US financial sanctions.

Today its clear why China and Russia have had an insatiable demand for gold. Theyve been waiting for the right moment to pull the rug from beneath the US dollar.

And now is that moment

Russia and Chinas gold could form the foundation of a new monetary system outside of the control of the US.

Such moves would be the final nail in the coffin of the international monetary system based on fiat currency and the US dollar.

Editors Note: The economic trajectory is troubling. Unfortunately, theres little any individual can practically do to change the course of these trends in motion.

The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible, and even profit from the situation.

Thats precisely why bestselling author Doug Casey and his colleagues just released an urgent new PDF report that explains what could come next and what you can do about it.

Click here to download it now.

Here is the original post:
CBDCs, SDRs, and the Re-Monetization of Gold Here's What Happens Next - International Man

By Angela McArdle

Twenty-one years ago, our country was changed forever. On Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaeda militants hijacked commercial airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center in New York, killing nearly 3,000 people. As countless families still grieve their lost loved ones from that tragic dayand the country suffers the consequences of the resulting war on terrorlibertarians fear too many of our countrymen still have not learned a vital lesson.

Ten years after the 9/11 attacks, then-presidential candidate and now-former Rep. Ron Paul warned Americans that the attacks were blowback for our governments actions in the Middle East. It should be easy to imagine how such a remark astounded the electorate; until then, Americans had been oblivious to their governments ventures abroad. For whatever reason, the corporate media had never covered the CIAs arming of Osama bin Laden in the 1980s to fight communism in Afghanistan, or the fact that US soldiersmassacredIraqi civilians during the Gulf War, or the 1.5 million Iraqi civilianskilledby US sanctions on milk and medicine in the 1990s.

Yet we flooded Afghanistan, a country so poor and remote that many of its citizens had no concept of New York City, skyscrapers, or even televisionsmuch less the events of 9/11. Less than two years later, we plundered Iraq in search of Saddam Husseins ever-elusive weapons of mass destruction;nineteen years and 4,500 dead U.S. service members later, we still have troops there.

America needed Ron Pauls iconic, uncomfortable moment on that debate stage. The integrity to speak truth to ones own team is rare in politics. To be seen as unpatriotic or insulting to the military has always been a political death sentence, and the years immediately following 9/11 were no exception. But the reality was as true then as it is today: There are few acts more inhumane or disrespectful to our troops than sending them to fight and die in pointless, endless wars abroad.

And many of the sacrifices our politicians told us would be necessary have been turned against us: the Patriot Act, NSA surveillance, and detention without due process, to name just a few. Mainstream pundits have evencalled forJan. 6 protesters to be sent to Guantanamo Bay, a place designated exclusively for the most dangerous terrorists. How long until our government starts turning its critics right here at home into political prisoners?

Ron Paul warned what many of the unseen casualties of the war on terror would be: our civil liberties; our ability to engage in diplomacy; trillions upon trillions added to our national debt; and control of our federal government. We have also had more than30,000 veteran suicidessince 9/11, and an estimated38,000 homeless veterans, many of whom suffer from traumatic brain injuries.

The people of the Middle East have paid a price no less heavy. Brown Universitys Costs of War Projectestimatesthat Americas post-9/11 wars have killed between 900,000 and 2 million people, many of them innocent women and children. The number of displaced persons is unknown, and the ensuing political instability has decimated the quality of life for millions of Middle Easterners.

In light of all this, libertarians message for America is simple: No more.

No more entangling alliances, no more military aid in foreign conflicts that do not serve our nations interests, no more grieving parents or grieving children whove lost their family members because of our drone strikes, no more destruction of our Constitutional rights, and no more veteran suicides or starving, homeless veterans wandering American streets.

Originally published in Human Events on 9/9/22

See the article here:
Lessons Learned: Ron Paul's Warnings Against the War on Terror Stand True - Libertarian Party

Talk about a revelation that isnt much of a surprise.

The Anti-Defamation League recently released a report revealing that an alarming number of elected officials, law-enforcement officers and first responders are or have been members or supporters of the radical-right conspiracy theory group, Oath Keepers.

The ADL combed through an Oath Keepers membership list leaked a year ago by the transparency collective Distributed Denial of Secrets to determine who on the list also was on a public payroll.

The ADL found that more than 3,000 Oath Keepers nationally draw government paychecks.

And, shock of shocks, of those 3,000-plus Oath Keepers feeding at the public trough, 696 a little more than 20% are Hoosiers.

The ADL also discovered that 81 elected officials nationwide were on the Oath Keepers membership rolls.

Six are Hoosiers. The most prominent is Indiana Rep. Christopher Judy, R-Fort Wayne, who spends most of his time in the legislature trying to figure out ways to make guns as omnipresent in Hoosier lives as molecules of air are and to deny women any control over their own bodies.

Isnt it curious how many of these self-proclaimed freedom fighters devote themselves to making sure no one tells them what to do with their firearms while asserting they should have the authority to tell others how to plan their families and live their lives?

Some background is helpful.

The Oath Keepers were formed in 2009 by a guy named Stewart Rhodes, a follower of former Libertarian Party presidential candidate Ron Paul, the father of U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky. The elder Pauls presidential ambitions were undercut by charges that his newsletter served as a welcoming forum for racist and other bigoted fulminations, some of which appeared under Pauls byline.

Paul claimed that he never wrote or even saw any of the scurrilous stuff, which again appeared in a newsletter bearing his name and often under his own byline.

That denial calls to mind basketball star Charles Barkleys wounded assertion that he had been misquoted in his own autobiography.

Rhodes emerged as a public figure by writing that Paul was being persecuted and that holding a presidential candidate accountable for things to which hed signed his name wasnt fair. That became Rhodes schtick, contending that anything that made an aggrieved arch-conservative look bad was a rank injustice.

Rhodes, who soon will go to court on seditious conspiracy charges in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, is not a rube. He graduated from the Yale University Law School.

Another curiosity: Isnt it interesting that so many graduates of elite Ivy-League law schools Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, etc. come to believe that the world just hasnt been kind enough to guys such as them?

Rhodes particular insight in forming Oath Keepers was that former military personnel and those working in law enforcement and as first responders would provide a fertile field for recruiting.

He was right.

The Oath Keepers grew rapidly, its membership stoked by feverish fantasies of government run amok and poor, defenseless white men always being on the verge of annihilation. They vowed to protect the U.S. Constitution which, of course, established government in this country and resist tyranny.

The irony of opposing the very thing that provides so many of them with their livelihoods never seemed to occur to them.

The same goes for seeking to undermine the very principles of self-government they, in theory anyway, took oaths to defend.

That so many Hoosiers have swallowed such a half-cooked stew of reality-denying conspiracy theories and responsibility-evading fantasies isnt exactly a thunderbolt.

If anything, the shock is that only one member of the Indiana General Assembly showed up on the ADL list.

A majority of the members of our legislature, after all, recently argued that the COVID pandemic was nothing but a fraud cooked up by trained medical professionals just to make good old boys like our lawmakers wear masks in public.

These guys would buy farmland on the moon if someone like Rhodes was doing the selling.

The truly great thing about all this is that so many of them buy their groceries and cover the rent with money the rest of us provide.

Your tax dollars at work.

Read more:
KRULL COLUMN: Maybe it's an oath they don't understand - Evening News and Tribune

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | RadioPublic | Stitcher | RSS

You need to build an emergency fund, but you also want to go to Burning Man.

You need to save for retirement, but you also want a Corvette.

You need to buy a house, but you also want to go on a cruise.

At first glance, it seems like you can either do what you should do, or you can do what you want to do. But theres not enough time or money to do both.

Or is there? Today, were going to talk about how you can tackle multiple financial goals and still not miss out on having some fun.

As usual, host Stacy Johnson is joined by financial journalist Miranda Marquit. Listening in and sometimes contributing is producer Aaron Freeman. Todays special guest is Chris Hutchins, founder of the podcast All the Hacks.

Remember, even though we sometimes talk about money and specific investments on this show, dont take them as recommendations because theyre not. Before investing in anything or making any money moves, do your research and make your own decisions.

You can watch this episode below, or if youd prefer to listen, you can do that with the player at the top of this article or download it wherever you get your podcasts:

Dont forget to check out our podcast page for more episodes designed to help you make the most of your money and our YouTube page for more videos.

So many of us seem stuck in this mindset where you have to take care of a checklist. You cant invest until youve paid off your debt. You cant spend money on travel until youve invested a certain amount.

Here are some good resources on money and mindset, as well as how to set financial goals:

The hosts talk about better money management hacks throughout the podcast episode. If youre looking for our take on some of the best hacks, check out these articles that can help you change your approach to money management.

Chris Hutchins is an avid life hacker, financial optimizer and host of the top-ranked podcast All the Hacks, where he shares his quest to upgrade his life, money and travel, all while spending less and saving more.

Hes also the head of new product strategy at Wealthfront, an online platform to help you build wealth through investing. He and his work has been featured in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNBC and more.

Previously, he was founder/CEO of Grove (acquired by Wealthfront), an investor at Google Ventures, and a co-founder of Milk (acquired by Google).

A podcast is basically a radio show you can listen to anywhere and anytime, either by downloading it to your smartphone, or by listening online. Theyre awesome for learning stuff and being entertained when youre in the car, doing chores, jogging or riding your bicycle.

You can listen to our latest podcasts here or download them to your phone from any number of places, including Apple, Spotify, RadioPublic, Stitcher and RSS.

If you havent listened to our podcast yet, give it a try, then subscribe. Youll be glad you did!

Stacy Johnson founded Money Talks News in 1991. Hes a CPA, and has also earned licenses in stocks, commodities, options principal, mutual funds, life insurance, securities supervisor and real estate.

Miranda Marquit, MBA, is a financial expert, writer and speaker. Shes been covering personal finance and investing topics for almost 20 years. When not writing and podcasting, she enjoys travel, reading and the outdoors.

Disclosure: The information you read here is always objective. However, we sometimes receive compensation when you click links within our stories.

View original post here:
9 Tips to Tackle Your Financial Goals and Still Have Fun - Money Talks News

Toa55 / Shutterstock.com

Wildfires are a devastating threat to homeowners everywhere, especially in the Western U.S. These blazes wreak havoc in the lives of thousands of people every year.

Federal government data shows that while the number of wildfires has decreased in recent years, the amount of area that typically burns in each fire is on the rise.

The 2022 Wildfire Risk Report from analytics firm CoreLogic notes:

Over the last decade, wildfire activity is becoming more extreme and destructive with more record-breaking fire events in terms of number of structures lost and acres burned in a single event.

During the most recent decade, wildfires have burned an average of 6.8 million acres annually, CoreLogic says. That is a sharp rise from the annual average of 2.7 million acres per year from 1983 to 1992.

Residents of some states are at much higher risk of wildfire damage than others. CoreLogic says the following places have the greatest number of homes at risk.

Single-family residences in this state that are at risk of wildfire damage: 1,265,435

Surprisingly, a 2017 review of historical trends found that the number of wildfires in California actually peaked in 1980 and had been decreasing in recent decades.

But drought conditions over the past few years have caused a more recent increase in fire activity. And in a state as highly populated as California, that puts many homes at risk.

Single-family residences in this state that are at risk of wildfire damage: 814,499

Like California, Florida is one of the most populated states in the nation, putting more homes in danger when wildfires break out.

One recent study projected that due to climate change, the percentage of homes at risk from wildfires in Florida could jump from the current 6% to 12% by 2052. And because Florida is so densely populated, more than 70% of all wildfires already threaten some type of structure in the state, according to the Florida Forest Service.

Single-family residences in this state that are at risk of wildfire damage: 474,560

Texas rounds out the trio of highly populated states with the most homes at risk of wildfire damage. As with the other states on this list, the fear is that as climate change dries out the landscape, future fires could become more destructive.

Here are the rest of the top 10 states with the most homes at risk of wildfire damage, and the number of those homes:

Disclosure: The information you read here is always objective. However, we sometimes receive compensation when you click links within our stories.

Continue reading here:
10 States With the Most Homes at Risk of Wildfire - Money Talks News

Ever closed a website tab you werent actually ready to leave? Theres no need to dig through your browser history to get it back.

All you have to do is press Ctrl, Shift and T on your keyboard at the same time. (You can hold down the first two and then press the third.) If you have an Apple keyboard, use (Cmd) instead of Ctrl.

This opens the last tab you had open, unless youre using an Incognito or InPrivate window. (You can open one of those with Ctrl+Shift+N, by the way.) It works in the most common web browsers.

CNET recently highlighted this powerful keyboard shortcut, which is one of my absolute favorites because I have the bad habit of closing a tab by accident, or closing it and immediately realizing I forgot to read or copy a number or link I still needed.

That reminded me there are plenty of people who havent heard of keyboard shortcuts I use daily to speed up my computer work. Here are a few others to try:

You can really go down a rabbit hole with keyboard shortcuts, and most applications have their own. But I consider most shortcuts too esoteric to bother remembering these few save me time every single day. Give them a try.

Disclosure: The information you read here is always objective. However, we sometimes receive compensation when you click links within our stories.

The rest is here:
5 Handy Keyboard Shortcuts That Make Internet Life Easier - Money Talks News

Republican Govs. Ron DeSantis (Fla.) and Greg Abbott (Texas) ignited a firestorm overnight with their latest transport of migrants one via plane to a Massachusetts island and the other via bus to Vice President Harris' residence.

The big picture: Since the spring, over 10,000 migrants have been transported from mostly Texas to predominantly Democrat-run cities in a bid to test their social safety nets and challenge President Biden's border policies.

Driving the news: Buses sent by Abbott dropped off roughly 100 migrants outside Harris' residence in D.C. on Thursday, the Texas Tribune reports.

Context: Republican officials at the southern border have long argued that their constituents shouldn't have to accommodate or subsidize costs of living for undocumented migrants.

Zoom in: D.C., Chicago and New York have struggled to meet the need, with local officials calling on the Biden administration to provide federal support.

Between the lines: While Abbott, Ducey and DeSantis say their actions give predominantly Democratic-run states a taste of what they have to endure, critics have lambasted the move as a cruel and inhumane publicity stunt, pointing to the fact that many of these migrants are seeking asylum after fleeing danger.

What's happening now: In Martha's Vineyard, an island off the Massachusetts coast, volunteers have moved migrants into a church shelter and delivered water, diapers and clothing. A nonprofit is providing food for the asylum seekers while the state determines where to take them next.

Worth noting: California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has called on the Justice Department to open a probe of Abbott and DeSantis' "inhumane efforts to use kids as political pawns," and whether their actions could lead to kidnapping charges.

What to watch: Other Democratic mayors are making preparations in anticipation of Abbott sending migrants to their cities.

Go deeper: On the ground: The scramble to help migrants at Martha's Vineyard

View original post here:
What we know about Texas and Florida's transport of migrants - Axios

nd3000 / Shutterstock.com

Editor's Note: This story originally appeared on HireAHelper.

The U.S. economy today, in some ways, offers the most favorable conditions workers have had in years. The unemployment rate is as low as it has been in two decades, having bounced back from a pandemic-induced spike in 2020. Simultaneously, the wave of departures and job switches now known as the Great Resignation suggests that workers are on the hunt for better jobs.

To recruit and retain employees in a tight labor market, employers are raising wages and offering better benefits and flexible working arrangements.

Amid these labor-friendly conditions, another historic source of worker power may be making a comeback: unions.

Recent union drives at major U.S. employers like Starbucks and Amazon have grabbed headlines. Meanwhile, Congress is currently considering the PRO Act, a major piece of legislation that aims to strengthen unions.

Support for unions is similarly widespread among the general population; a majority of Americans believes that declines in union membership have been bad for the country, and according to the National Labor Relations Board, petitions for union elections nationwide rose by 57% from 2021 to 2022.

Researchers at HireAHelper calculated the percentage of workers who are union members by looking at data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2021 Current Population Survey.

Here are the states with the highest union participation rates.

The data used in this analysis is from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2021 Current Population Survey. To determine the states with the highest union participation rates, researchers calculated the percentage of workers who are union members. In the event of a tie, the state with the greater percentage of workers who are represented by unions was ranked higher. For clarification, workers who are represented by unions includes both union members who have the right to vote on union business, as well as workers who report no union affiliation but whose jobs are covered by a union contract.

Only the 100 largest metropolitan areas with available data were considered in this analysis.

Disclosure: The information you read here is always objective. However, we sometimes receive compensation when you click links within our stories.

Here is the original post:
15 States With the Highest Union Participation Rates - Money Talks News