The Chief Information Officer at the time arranged the meeting to put structure around all this app development I was doing for 911: CAD remarks keyword highlighter, instant 911 call history, immediately show call out #s for a shooting etc (so dispatchers aren't leaving their desks to find the numbers in phone books), and TAC channel registration (again so they would leave their desk). It was the Captain that wouldn't go along with the Chief Information Officer was trying to accomplish.
Because heroin sale and use was mostly confined to poor and minority communities. Now a different population is consuming them that happens to be white and suburbanite.
I also support receiving them, but it is a political game. It would have made more sense to help a much larger number closer to home in countries where we could help far more people for the same amounts of money and while putting them at less risk.
The problem is that a lot of the people talking about helping them closer to home have no intention of doing so - it's an excuse not to spend money at all. It is suddenly important to help them nearer to home now, when the problem is not "contained" anymore.
Having them come to the wealthier EU countries helps drive home the seriousness of the crisis in a completely different way. Most people in Europe seems to have had no understanding of how many people need help, and have had an easy time writing these crises of as something happening far away.
That's why this is a political game. On both sides.
You morally accept them but can't functionally accept them. And morals have this downside of interfering with others in an unfair and dangerous ways. Sweden and rapes for a clear example.
First semester living in the Valley, I gained ~30 lbs and realized the same happened to most new employees(not as much me).
Somehow, the company gave the idea of change/disruption/... and that made us work a lot more. Sometimes, 15 hours a day in front of a computer. Still, PMs and execs always got all credit and I started focusing on myself. It was NOT worth it.
I ended up regaining my health and I always remind hardworking friends they're playing their own game.
The dichotomy is between small businesses that will employ more people, and those organizations that put enriching themselves before preventing human suffering.
Lower taxes and higher owner incomes aren't 1:1 equatable to job creation or greater collective wealth.
"I can't see how an employed and wealthy population could be a bad thing."
It isn't. But what we're facing is a _small_ employed and extremely wealthy fraction of the population together with a _huge_ low-paid supermajority of the population.
Small business owners want fewer and less taxes, no unions, lower wages, lower healthcare costs, fewer worker protections, etc. Left to themselves they would drive wages to zero. Small businesses join others to support certain non-profits that lobby in Washington, DC on their behalf. Nothing illegal, but one must ask such questions as: "Where are the lobbyists for low-paid workers?" or "Who will support the workers' families after the workers die from inhaling toxic substances day after day?" These are questions in which the small businessman's lobbyist has no interest.
In one chapter "Conscience of a Liberal" Krugman histories the development of this relatively new conservative and wealthy network of individuals and not-for-profit corporations. Read/skim the book for details:
One of Krugman's points is that the middle class is disappearing in the USA: wealth distribution now mirrors that which existed in the so-called "Gilded Age" of the Rockefellers, Carnegie et al (late 19th-early 20th century): a small percentage of extremely rich people and a large percentage of poor, with a very small middle class.
FDR's New Deal, by increasing taxes radically on the wealthy (both inheritance and income taxes) and increasing wages, brought a strong middle-class into existence. That middle class has been the engine of the US economy but is dwindling. The solution is to restore taxes and support the worker's causes.
...in late stage development which is MUCH less risky. Super risky early stage tech development mostly happens in the public sector at taxpayer expense through government agencies like DARPA.
A lot of things are easier when it happens with other people's money. A lot of those projects didn't necessarily have the expectation to make/turn a profit.
Our unfortunate reality is that of a socialization of investment; something discussed from Marx to Keynes.
In the next decades, the idea of investing become blur and centralized.
https://www.contentful.com/developers/docs/references/conten...