“This gives us a minimum number of civilian war deaths of approximately 15,700. Based on 29,000 airstrikes, this leads to an average of 54 civilians killed per 100 attacks.
How does this compare to other operations? A roughly comparable operation where we have similar data is urban operations in Raqqa, Syria, against the Islamic State. In the Raqqa operation, according to DOD reporting, there were 178 civilian deaths and 10,663 airstrikes—an average of 1.7 civilian deaths per 100 attacks. This number for Raqqa was not considered to be good—never mind a gold standard. In fact, there was so much concern about the levels of civilian harm and destruction in Raqqa that DOD conducted an independent assessment of civilian harm (disclaimer: I was a member of the team that authored the report). The findings of this assessment contributed to the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR-AP) directed by U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. In the report, we also mention that this DoD estimate is likely low. For example, our study team considered the Airwars estimate of 744 civilian deaths to be more realistic. This yields a higher average of 7.0 civilian deaths per 100 attacks.
Despite the alarm over the high rate of civilian deaths in Raqqa, one finds the minimum equivalent in Gaza—54 civilians killed in 100 attacks—is eight times greater than the Airwars-based estimate and 32 times greater than the DOD estimate. And recall that 54 is a lower bound for the Gaza ratio; it is likely far higher than this. Just as miners in California could see the appearance of iron pyrite—fool’s gold—and think they had struck the real thing, it is possible to look at the IDF’s precautionary measures and at first glance think they are practicing civilian harm mitigation. But whether evaluating the IDF’s performance on its process or its results, it fails to qualify as a gold standard.”
https://www.justsecurity.org/93105/israeli-civilian-harm-mitigation-in-gaza-gold-standard-or-fools-gold/
“This problem is so big, there’s not enough money to buy your way out. Some policymakers try to do demand-side incentives to buy off mortgages or supplement rent. If you don’t increase supply, those demand-side incentives have unintended consequences that actually make the problem worse.”
…
“A major way that Texas has kept prices down is through building gobs of new housing. Lone Star State jurisdictions collectively permitted about twice the number of new homes that California did last year, despite the state having around 8 million fewer residents.
Data culled by the Financial Times shows that the difference in per capita building is even more pronounced when one compares cities like Austin and Houston to San Francisco, which is in turn reflected in prices. Median home prices in Houston are a quarter of what they are in San Francisco.
The state has some of the most affordable housing of all the booming sunbelt states (save North Carolina) and is more affordable on average than the U.S. as a whole.”
…
“Part of Texas’ housing success is its uninteresting geography that Glock alluded to—lots of flat, dry land around its major cities that’s ideal for building new exurban subdivisions.
“A couple of the metros might have some physical constraints, but not really,” says Jacob Wegman, an associate professor at the University of Texas Austin’s School of Architecture. It’s “nothing compared to the California coastal metros or the Northeastern metros with their harbors. That’s got to be part of the story.””
…
“Texas’ policies also put no real regulatory obstacles in front of new suburban housing either. The state’s counties, for instance, can’t adopt zoning laws. That means housing is allowed on all unincorporated land.
High-cost, low-growth California and New York both have environmental laws that require endless studies on new development, and which give third parties the right to sue over new housing approvals. The result is new subdivisions can take half a century to approve.
Texas, in contrast, has no such laws.
“There’s just no real mechanism for neighbors who don’t want greenfield development to happen to stop it in any meaningful way,” says Wegman. “That’s got to be a big, big part of the story.””
https://reason.com/2024/03/05/everything-is-getting-bigger-in-texas/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJUl77rsFEw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9DFhoL_kKQ
“According to Dawson, nuclear power is “the most scalable, reliable, efficient, land-conserving, material-sparing, zero-emission source of energy ever created.” Wind and solar aren’t as reliable because they depend on intermittent weather. They also require much more land than nuclear plants, which use about 1 percent of what solar farms need and 0.3 percent of what wind farms require to yield the same amount of energy.
The economics of nuclear power are undoubtedly challenging, but its advocates say that’s primarily because of its thorny politics. The headache of building a new power plant is vividly exemplified by Georgia’s Plant Vogtle. The first U.S. reactor built from scratch since 1974, the project turned into a nightmare scenario: It took almost 17 years from when the first permit was filed for construction to begin, it cost more than $28 billion, and it bankrupted the developer in the process.
Nuclear regulation is “based on politics and fear-mongering and a lack of understanding,” explains Indian Point’s vice president, Frank Spagnuolo. If they aren’t shut down, he says, power plants such as Indian Point could safely continue to provide clean energy for decades. ”
https://reason.com/video/2024/03/05/the-political-sabotage-of-nuclear-power/
“What constitutes an emergency? According to Congress’ new spending package, research equipment and facilities for the National Science Foundation is an emergency. So are the 2024 Democratic National Committee convention and the Republican National Committee convention. So is NASA space exploration.
By classifying all these line items as emergencies, Congress can get hundreds of millions of taxpayer funding for them with reduced oversight.”
…
“According to a January report from the Cato Institute, Congress has approved over $12 trillion in spending for emergencies over the past three decades, making up around 1 in 10 federal budget dollars spent—more than both Medicaid and veterans programs combined.”
…
“”Congress has complete discretion in designating spending for emergencies because what qualifies as an emergency is subject to interpretation,” Romina Boccia and Dominik Lett wrote in Cato’s report. While the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has laid out several criteria that emergency spending is supposed to meet, Boccia and Lett note that “the current process lacks a mechanism to evaluate whether an emergency provision meets the OMB’s test, which means that anything can count as emergency spending.”
Once spending gets earmarked as an emergency, it isn’t subjected to typical caps on discretionary spending, allowing Congress to rack up costs with little accountability. “Unfortunately, over the course of the last 30-some years, Congress took what was designed to be a ‘break glass in case of emergency’ escape valve, and they’ve turned it into a major source of funding for federal activity,” David Ditch, a senior policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, tells Reason.”It’s just a way for [Congress] to avoid fiscal consequences. And that’s part of how we got where we are.””
…
“Cato’s report highlights some particularly egregious examples of this exact phenomenon, including $600 million earmarked for replacing aircraft used in weather forecasting, $347 million for prison construction and detention costs, and $278 million to speed up the building process for a single research center.
“To me, the original sin in all of this is too many members of Congress don’t care at all about where the money comes from, all they care about is getting as much money out the door that they can take credit for,” says Ditch. “They’re more concerned with their next reelection than they are with the nation’s trajectory 20 and 30 years down the line.””
https://reason.com/2024/03/05/congress-wastes-billions-with-bogus-emergency-declaration/
“Every year, women and girls from Southeast Asia move to China, sometimes by force or coercion, to marry Chinese men, care for them, and bear children. While many migrate voluntarily, knowing that they are to be married, an unknown number of women from countries including Cambodia, Myanmar (also known as Burma), Indonesia, and Vietnam are deceived or trapped in their situations. Similarly, although some women are happy in their marriages, others are exposed to violence, sexual abuse, and forced labor.
China’s historical one-child policy (which formally ended in 2016), coupled with a cultural preference for sons, has led to a gender imbalance there, which is one reason for this migration. The country had about 35 million more males than females, according to the 2020 census. Moreover, arranged marriages are common, creating the opportunity for exploitation. Men looking for foreign brides tend to be poorer by Chinese standards yet may pay brokers or matchmakers several thousand dollars—and sometimes more than U.S. $40,000, according to researchers. The expectation for men to marry and produce a son is one reason for the dramatic increase in bride prices. The many men who are unable to find wives in China often face social pressures and a degree of public sympathy, as do their families, which contributes to normalizing the process of paying for brides.”
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/china-bride-migration-trafficking
“Europeans comprised 10 percent, or slightly more than 4.7 million, of the 46.2 million immigrants living in the United States in 2022, according to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data. Europeans represent the third-largest region-origin immigrant group after those from the Americas (52 percent) and Asia (31 percent). Recently, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has sparked new movements to the United States, with Ukrainians and Russians alike seeking refuge and opportunity. This trend highlights how geopolitical events continue to influence migration patterns.
Europeans are more likely than other immigrants to have strong English skills and to be naturalized U.S. citizens. Compared to immigrants overall and the U.S. born, European immigrants are more likely to hold a bachelor’s degree and have a higher income. European immigrants also tend to be considerably older than the overall foreign- and native-born populations. While most Europeans who became lawful permanent residents (LPRs, also known as green-card holders) in fiscal year (FY) 2022 did so through family reunification channels, nearly one-third were sponsored by U.S. employers.”
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/european-immigrants-united-states
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8oCilY4szc
“the actual report concludes exactly the opposite: “The more rural the county, the lower the county rate of sending insurrectionists” to the January 6 Capitol riot. Moreover, when a peer-reviewed article in the journal Political Behavior compared rural and non-rural beliefs on whether politically motivated violence is a valid means for pursuing political change, it revealed that rural Americans are actually less supportive of political violence.”
https://reason.com/2024/03/07/the-truth-about-rural-rage/