So, the title of this article might as well be “Company Obeys Laws of Country They Are In”. Sure, the laws suck and the company sucks, but… why is this a story?
I just want to say that graphs like this should be contrasted with the number of deaths from extreme cold. I know Arizona probably doesn’t have the numbers of say, Alaska, but it’s worthy of note to contrast the two.
I’d also point out that it is far easier for an individual to protect themselves against the rigors of cold than it is for heat; in the cold, with warm clothing, you can keep yourself warm, while the environment is very cold; fire is relatively easy to make, even if you have little more than sticks, and thus getting warm or keeping yourself warm is by and large easier to accomplish than staying cold.
When you’re in an extremely hot environment, it’s not like you can make yourself more naked than naked. You need some outside influence to keep you cool, like a swamp cooler, a misting sprayer, a cool body of water (like a river or lake), or some kind of man-made cooling device like an Air Conditioner, in a relatively sealed enclosure (which relies on consistent access to power to run it). most of these are either inaccessible to people in a city or built-up area; sure, there are fixtures, like fountains that contain water, usually not enough to keep them from heating up, and usually the water is recycled, so the heat stays with the water. all other water access is typically restricted to water lines, which usually someone is paying for, and nobody wants to pay to keep random people cool when they don’t have to. All man-made (air conditioner) type cooling is generally access restricted to either workplaces, homes, or businesses/storefronts, where the expectation is that you’ll be spending money there (which not everyone has).
I’m just saying, that the limiting factor to reducing death by extreme heat, is a far larger one, than death by extreme cold, where you should only need to hand out sweaters, gloves/mittens, jackets, blankets, etc, to keep people from dying from it. There’s far-end extreme cold that almost nothing will save you from short of a heated structure, but generally, places that are inhabited by people who don’t have access to safe heat and cooling (like a home), are more temperate than that extreme of cold… not exactly too many homeless people walking around the arctic or Antarctic circles…
Neither is good, but both seem inevitable; regardless we should be doing all we can to help to ensure the survival of everyone, as a species. Whether that’s saving them from the heat, the cold, from starvation or dehydration, we should be helping in any way we are able to.
They never seem to end this sentence with “so we’re spending the money to be able to process all legal applications as fast as possible and creating a new legal immigration pathway for good people fleeing hard circumstances”
Well, that’s the funny thing. If a nation does it, it isn’t considered “terrorism”. If you open that door, then the US gets implicated, too, because they’ve also been involved in terrorist activities. So, it serves US interests to keep the definition narrowly defined to non-state actors.
The US bombed every cathedral in Germany worse than this. This is what happens in war. You should devote your energy to stopping wars, not trying to get them to be “nicer”. War will never be nice.
Too chicken shit to do that since its russia. They only do that to small nation they can bully around. If its another superpower, they engage in proxy war and cower behind NATO or other nation such ukraine/hong kong.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.