#Poverty Alleviation Program

[lmsintmedia]

Tinubu Allocates ₦32.7 Billion to Support Vulnerable Nigerians

Key Highlights: Focus on Youth and Women: Priority given to vulnerable groups, including youth and women. Loans Without Collateral or Interest: Beneficiaries will receive non-collateral, non-interest loans ranging from ₦300,000 to ₦400,000. Empowering 70 Million Nigerians: Programs include conditional cash transfers, N-Power reform, and youth empowerment tools. President Bola Tinubu Approves…

[farmerstrend]

How Boehringer Ingelheim's LastMile Program is Transforms Lives of Smallholder Farmers in Kenya

Discover how the LastMile program is transforming the lives of smallholder farmers like Grace Njeri in rural Kenya, empowering them with essential animal health services and education. Learn how access to veterinary services and sustainable farming practices is helping smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa improve their livelihoods and escape poverty. Explore the inspiring story of Grace…

[himedanshicult]

According to the author, this piece was written out of political concern, and they are not a professional researcher. Instead, Canyu hopes the article will contribute to the development of sympathy among “the Chinese pan-dissent community” for the conditions and struggles of both Palestinians and Uyghurs, and that it will also help to short-circuit the political frameworks of pro-Western Chinese liberals, on the one hand, and anti-Western Chinese nationalists, on the other, who normally position themselves in one “camp” against another when it comes to discussions of these two oppressed groups. Like the earlier piece produced by their collective, Canyu’s article offers valuable insights into a strong desire among Chinese comrades to extend the critique of Israel’s horrific war on Gaza to the PRC’s subjugation of Turkic Muslims. In this case, the author focuses on the way that both colonial states have controlled the labor of the colonized. We present this text as a way to better understand and support internationalist currents emerging from the Chinese left, and as a contribution to the ongoing wave of global resistance to the genocide in Gaza.

In the spirit of comradely critique, we offer a few clarifications in this preface. First, while we support the sentiment of emphasizing commonalities between specific instances of oppression under the rule of capital, in this case the differences are also striking: The author’s focus on labor makes more sense for the PRC, whose colonial policies seem to have been partly organized around the goal of transforming Turkic Muslims into a disciplined workforce cut off from any cultural continuity with their histories of resistance. Israel, by contrast has shown less interest in the labor potential of Palestinians, particularly in Gaza. Palestinians experience some of the highest unemployment rates in the world, which have hovered around 50 percent in Gaza for many years, and around 15 percent in the West Bank—where reliance on Palestinian labor has historically been more central to the colonial project. After October 7th, the 4th quarter 2023 unemployment rates in Gaza jumped to an unprecedented 75%. By contrast, unemployment in Xinjiang is relatively low, and increases in unemployment are used as a pretext for proactively shipping off ethnic minority populations across the country in jobs programs. While Canyu’s comparison makes more sense for the West Bank, Israel’s treatment of Gaza would be better understood as an extreme example of the “surplus population”: the portion of the proletariat rendered unnecessary for capitalist needs, thereby becoming not an object of potential exploitation, but merely a problem to be managed—whether through abandonment, incarceration or murder.1

Secondly, while the article emphasizes China’s use of re-education camps, or what the state has infamously called “vocational training facilities,” these sites have largely been converted or shut down since 2019, as the state shifted strategies in its latest policy permutation. This is not to say that the situation has improved for Turkic Muslims. Many of the “training facilities” were merely converted into ordinary prisons. For those inmates who were released rather than formally becoming prisoners, the state has continued a policy of labor transfer under the guise of poverty alleviation campaigns, relocating Uyghur labor to factories across the country.2 Meanwhile, the PRC recently moved to “normalize counterterrorism,” a shift that will likely further institutionalize the subjugated position of Turkic Muslims in Chinese society. There is currently no Israeli equivalent to the “training facilities” that became so notorious in Xinjiang. Instead, the Israeli state sees itself faced with a massive, unemployed, war-ravaged population often portrayed as sub-human, and has never posed any strategy for incorporating this population into its national workforce. Instead, it is currently planning to place Gazans in cordoned off “bubbles” while it continues its military campaign in other parts of the Strip.

In addition, while the author mentions Israel-China security relations in passing, here we would like to highlight that China and Israel have a long history of cooperation on “counterterrorism,” directed at Palestinians, Uyghurs, and the broader population. For example, China publicly sought out Israeli counterterrorism experts at the height of its crackdown in 2014. Similarly, China has invested billions of dollars in Israel’s high-tech sector and has served as the country’s second largest trading partner in recent years (behind the United States). To this day, China’s Hikvision cameras aid in the mass surveillance of Palestinians and others in Israeli society.

We’d also like to note that this article exemplifies a growing concern with the plight of Palestine in China, which appears to be more widespread than it has been in decades—despite the state’s strategic ambiguity on the issue and repression of any domestic activities that could be interpreted as “protest.” Semi-public film screenings and discussions have been organized among young activists in several cities over the past few months, and beyond that narrow milieu, recent weeks have even seen small-scale political actions by high school students. These students used brief media appearances during their post-exam celebrations to call for Palestine’s liberation. While such calls at first seem to be not so distant from China’s nominally pro-Palestinian position, the actions themselves were not welcomed by the state, perhaps because they risked drawing too much attention toward China’s empty posturing on this issue, while it has long maintained cozy relations with Israel. Some of these posts were deleted from social media, and a video of one incident shows students being taken off-camera by police. The demonstrations, as well as the piece below, illustrate why expanding the discussion of Palestinian oppression is in direct conflict with the Chinese state’s own interests.3

Finally, we’d like to emphasize that this article is one of only a handful of Chinese texts we’ve seen attempting to link the plight of Palestinians to that of Uyghurs (along with “Against Pinkwashing” and two of the sources cited below), and it’s the first non-academic piece we’ve seen that draws on extensive research using a broad variety of Chinese and English sources. It digs deep into the history of colonialism, land tenure, and labor conditions in both regions—attempting to clarify the facts and provide a Marxist theorization for young Chinese readers who have only recently begun to learn about these issues. We therefore consider it a milestone in the development of 21st century Chinese internationalism

[mariacallous]

Presidential advisor Elon Musk recently claimed on Joe Rogan’s podcast that Social Security is “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.” In fact, Social Security has been one of the most effective and enduring components of America’s social safety net. It has done more than almost anything else to alleviate the problem of poverty amongst the elderly. While the program has been far from perfect, Congress has continued to improve and strengthen its structure over time when reforms were warranted. The program has become a “third rail” in national politics because it is so central to the lives of families living in states both red and blue.

Until recently, President Donald Trump has known enough to stay away from this issue. He has avoided mentioning cuts to the program, most likely sensitive to the fact that doing so has very little appeal to most of the electorate, including with a lot of the voters who brought him into power.

But as with his drive to reshape the government workforce with a sledgehammer rather than a chisel, Musk might end up dragging the president into a political quagmire that will consume much of the administration’s energy. Threatening Social Security, which turns 90 this year, will do more than almost anything else to energize Democrats and deflate Republicans, who will perceive this to be a losing issue for their party.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Democratic Congress created Social Security in 1935 at the height of the New Deal. The United States had yet not adopted the kind of federal social insurance programs for retirees that European nations had put into place decades earlier, like Germany (1889) and Denmark (1891). In 1934, the Committee on Economic Security, headed by Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, proposed that Congress create a federal insurance program that would provide retirees with pensions financed through payroll taxes.

Crucially, the program would be universal, including all workers who whose jobs were covered rather than deciding who should receive benefits through a means test. The belief of the program’s founders was that within a nation historically ambivalent about federal programs, means tests stigmatized beneficiaries whereas universal benefits were not seen as handouts. Universal benefits also had the advantage of investing many different income classes in the continuation of the program, since everyone under the insurance umbrella would receive something down the line.

Additionally, Old-Age Insurance, as it was called, was seen as a more conservative alternative to flat monthly pensions, which some reformers were calling for, and which would be paid for by the federal government. As Roosevelt said: “We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.”

The Social Security taxes were a key part of the legislation. First, the taxes offered a fiscally conservative method to pay for benefits that would not draw on general tax revenue. Congress would be forced to consider the long-term annual costs of the program to make certain that they did not have to raise taxes on workers. Initially, Congress also planned to accumulate a surplus of funds. Second, the payroll taxes would leave workers feeling invested in the program by giving them the sense that they were “paying into” a system and thus deserved benefits down the line. “With those taxes in there,” Roosevelt later said, “no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

But it faced problems immediately.

Southern Democrats who controlled many major committees insisted that agricultural and domestic workers, two segments of the labor force with high levels of Black employment, were excluded. The South did not want them to be brought into a federal policy that easily could open the door to civil rights interventions. Women were also left out, as legislators envisioned a program for single wage-earning households, and at the time, those workers were assumed to be men. Finally, the notion of a surplus for the future was the most questionable part of the package since the money would not literally be saved in some kind of bank account for future use. In practice, the excess funds would be invested in government securities. (Collecting money that would not be used in the short term sit well at a time that workers were still struggling with the effects of the Great Depression.)

During its first five years in existence, the program was on politically shaky ground. While Congress did expand coverage in 1939 to include workers’ widows and dependents, political support for Old Age Insurance remained weak. A number of Republicans attacked Roosevelt’s measure. In 1936, Republican presidential candidate Alf Landon said the program was a “cruel hoax” that would create a massive bureaucracy; he believed there was “every probability that the cash they pay in will be used for current deficits and new extravagances.” Opponents in Congress tried to subvert the program by freezing payroll tax increases eight times, starting in 1939, and lobbying to finance benefits through general revenue, which would eliminate the politically valuable earmarked payroll taxes, and thus make Social Security subject to the vagaries of all other discretionary programs.

In 1950, with Democrat Harry Truman in the White House, his party saved the program. Congress increased Old Age Insurance, raised the taxes, and gradually expanded the kinds of jobs that were covered, starting with agricultural workers. Congress abandoned the idea of collecting a surplus so that benefits were paid for on a strict pay-as-you go basis. Today’s workers would pay for today’s retirees. In 1954, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower warned in a letter to his brother: “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.” The Social Security card that bore the individual number of every citizen became a point of pride. Though the Social Security number was originally created so that the government could record worker’s earnings for the program, it came to become one of the most common forms of identification.

For the next few decades Social Security grew steadily. When Republican candidate Barry Goldwater proposed making the program voluntary—thus undercutting its universal structure—in 1964, he was pilloried by President Lyndon Johnson, who used Goldwater’s proposition as one more piece of evidence that he was a radical conservative. In 1965, Congress added health care benefits��Medicare, which was also constructed as a universal benefit—into Social Security. It was one of Johnson’s greatest legislative victories. In 1972, Republicans and Democrats vied to increase benefits as Americans were struggling with inflation born out of spending on Vietnam. The partisan competition was over how to expand, not over whether to do so. President Richard Nixon and congressional Republicans pushed to index benefits to inflation so that there would be automatic cost-of-living adjustments when prices rose. Seeking to retain discretionary control over benefits, House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Wilbur Mills, a Democrat, preferred the old-fashioned method of having Congress vote to raise the numbers (which also ensured they would receive credit). The final Social Security Amendments included both proposals. Benefits rose by a whopping 20 percent and the legislation indexed the program.

Since 1972, there have been a number of occasions when Congress has incrementally increased taxes and adjusted benefits based on actuarial predictions made by the Social Security Administration or bipartisan commissions. For instance, the Social Security Amendments of 1983 increased payroll taxes and delayed a cost-of-living adjustment to make the program solvent into the near future.

Republican efforts to directly cut Social Security benefits have never been successful. The program is too popular. When Reagan initially tried to address a fiscal shortfall in 1981, his Office of Management and Budget director, David Stockman, proposed significantly reducing benefits for early retirees. House Democrats pounced, with Speaker Tip O’Neill warning that this was the first step to destroying the program. Reagan backed away, giving rise to the notion that the program had become a “third rail” in American politics. In 2005, fresh from his reelection victory against Sen. John Kerry, President George W. Bush proposed a major plan that would privatize the system by allowing workers to invest some of their payroll taxes into investment accounts, thereby taking a risk as to where the account would be upon their retirement. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid handed the president a whopping defeat.

In 2008, more than 50 million people were receiving Social Security benefits. In 2025, approximately 69 million Americans will receive roughly $1.6 trillion in benefits. That includes almost nine of out 10 Americans 65 and older, for whom Social Security constitutes 31 percent of their income. Furthermore, 39 percent of men who are 65 and older and 44 percent of women that age receive at least 50 percent of their income from Social Security. According to the National Institute on Retirement Security, a stunning 87 percent of Americans believe that Social Security should remain a budgetary priority. That figure includes 86 percent of Republicans.

It is not a shock as to why many Americans have a sense of pride, as the founders of the program had predicted, in having paid into this system and equally believe that they are deserving of their monthly benefits.

Given the track record of Trump 2.0 thus far, there is no reason to believe that Musk is not serious about putting Social Security in the administration’s crosshairs. Indeed, the biggest threat right now to the efficiency of Social Security is Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency itself, as it drives a proposal to slash thousands of jobs from the Social Security Administration and has gained access to the payment system.

To be sure, the program must deal with the growing numbers of retirees and thinning population of workers. But Trump and Musk’s burn-down-the-house approach is dangerous to the elderly and a worse alternative to the kinds of incremental reforms (such as increasing the taxable maximum ceiling on wages and increasing payroll taxes) that have continued to correct imbalances in the program since the 1970s. For example, the Brookings Institution has put forward one comprehensive study that shows how solvency could be achieved while maintaining the integrity of the basic program.

Trump, who has kept him away from this battle until now, might find his partner Musk drawing him into something that even Trump can’t spin his way out of. At a time of growing job insecurity and rising prices, as well stagnant pension coverage, Roosevelt’s legacy is more important than ever before.

[darkmaga-returns]

The Biden administration had requested $64.4 billion in discretionary budget authority for 2025 for State, USAID, and other international programs.

But on Monday, the Trump admin ordered the closure of USAID’s Washington D.C. headquarters and is now threatening to shut down the agency permanently.

Contrary to mainstream depictions of the agency as a provider of philanthropic assistance for soup kitchens and health clinics, USAID is a tool of Deep State foreign policy used to exert influence in other countries under the guise of humanitarian aid.

USAID is frequently involved in laundering taxpayer money through projects that support globalist strategic interests, which might not always align with the stated goals of development or poverty alleviation.

The agency covertly supports regime change operations by funding opposition groups, NGOs, and initiatives that align with globalist political and economic objectives, thereby meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt recently condemned the “insane priorities” that USAID has funded around the world.

“I don’t know about you, but as an American taxpayer, I don’t want my dollars going towards this crap,” Leavitt said.

[jeremyleefree]

Tesla CEO Elon Musk made an explosive accusation on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter)

Recently, Tesla CEO Elon Musk made an explosive accusation on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), saying that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) manipulated public opinion by "buying left-wing media with heavy money" and called it "the biggest scandal in history." This statement quickly triggered heated debates in the American political, media and public circles. What is the truth? This article combines information from multiple parties and historical background to try to clarify the context of this storm.

Origin of the incident: Musk's "blockbuster"

In June 2024, Musk posted a short tweet on his X account with 180 million followers: "USAID spends billions of dollars every year to "infiltrate" left-wing media, which is the cancer of democracy." The accompanying picture is a screenshot of a "confidential document" with no source indicated, which shows that USAID provides funds to media such as The New York Times and The Washington Post through non-governmental organizations to "promote a specific agenda." Although Musk did not provide further evidence, the tweet was forwarded more than 2 million times within 24 hours, and USAID's manipulation of the media quickly became a hot search in many countries.

Reactions from all parties: from fierce rebuttal to conspiracy theory carnival

1. USAID and the media involved urgently refuted the rumors

A USAID spokesperson issued a statement on the same day, saying that Musk's accusation was "completely false and irresponsible", emphasizing that the agency's funding flow was transparent and mainly used for global poverty alleviation, health and democracy construction projects. The New York Times responded that its reporting was "always independent" and accused Musk of "using the platform to spread false information to divert public attention from his business disputes."

2. Political camps split

Republican conservative lawmakers quickly supported Musk, and the House Oversight Committee announced that it would launch a review of USAID. The Democratic Party criticized this move as "political manipulation in the election year" and dug up the satellite contract signed by Musk's company with the US government, questioning his motives.

3. Public opinion is polarized

On social media, supporters spread related conspiracy theories with the label "deep government manipulation of the media", while opponents made a "long rumor-refuting picture" to sort out USAID's audit reports over the years, pointing out that its funds mainly flowed to projects such as anti-epidemic in Africa and agricultural reconstruction in Ukraine, and had no direct connection with domestic media.

Historical Origin: USAID's "media infiltration" controversy is not the first time

Although there is no conclusive evidence for this incident, USAID does have a history of intervening in media operations. For example:

Cuba's "ZunZuneo" project in 2014: USAID was exposed to secretly establish a social network similar to Twitter in an attempt to incite anti-government sentiment.

Funding for "democracy programs" in the Middle East: USAID once funded Arabic soap operas to implant content such as women's empowerment and election voting.

"Anti-false information" grants: In 2022, USAID established a $230 million fund to "counter the influence of China and Russia", and some of the funds flowed to research institutions and think tanks, indirectly affecting the media reporting framework.

Experts pointed out that as an executive agency of US foreign policy, USAID's "media projects" are usually aimed at overseas, and Musk's accusation of "manipulating domestic left-wing media" if true, will seriously violate the US Smith-Mundt Act (prohibiting the government from promoting to the domestic public) and journalistic ethics.

Deep-seated contradictions: power game between tech giants, government and media

Musk's attack was seen by the outside world as a concentrated outbreak of multiple contradictions:

Commercial interest conflict: X platform's advertising revenue has declined in recent years, and Musk has repeatedly accused traditional media of "jointly boycotting" its content review policy.

Political stance change: Musk has changed from calling himself a "moderate" to supporting conservative issues, and his relationship with the Democratic Party has deteriorated. His actions such as unblocking Trump's account after acquiring Twitter have exacerbated the confrontation.

Media trust crisis: Pew Research Center data shows that only 34% of Americans trust mainstream media, a historical low. In this context, any accusation of "manipulating the media" can ignite public sentiment.

Law and ethics: What does it mean if the accusation is established?

If the investigation confirms that USAID has illegally funded domestic media, it may lead to the following consequences:

1. Legal level: The media involved may need to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, otherwise they will face heavy penalties; the head of USAID may be held accountable by Congress.

2. Media credibility: The already fragile public trust will suffer a devastating blow, further contributing to the rise of alternative media.

3. International impact: The United States has long accused other countries of "propaganda infiltration". If this is confirmed, it may lose its moral high ground.

Unsolved mystery: Who is creating the "information smoke bomb"?

So far, key doubts have not been clarified:

The authenticity of the "confidential documents" cited by Musk is in doubt. Cybersecurity experts have found that its format is highly similar to the forged documents of hacker organizations in the past.

USAID's annual budget is about US$27 billion, but about 94% is used for international projects. The remaining domestic funds are mainly used for academic research. There is no evidence that they flow to the media.

- Left-wing media generally rely on subscriptions and advertising. If they receive government funds, they must disclose them according to law. There are no abnormal items in their financial reports in recent years.

The truth takes time, but the crisis of trust is imminent

This storm reflects the deep anxiety of American society about power and information. Regardless of the final results of the investigation, the public's distrust of institutions, the confrontation between the media and technology giants, and the entertainment of political struggles have posed more severe challenges than a single scandal. As the Columbia Journalism Review said: "When 'exposing scandals' itself becomes a traffic business, the foundation of democracy is being hollowed out."

[gatheringbones]

[“How do we, today, make the poor in America poor? In at least three ways. First, we exploit them. We constrain their choice and power in the labor market, the housing market, and the financial market, driving down wages while forcing the poor to overpay for housing and access to cash and credit. Those of us who are not poor benefit from these arrangements. Corporations benefit from worker exploitation, sure, but so do consumers who buy the cheap goods and services the working poor produce, and so do those of us directly or indirectly invested in the stock market. Landlords are not the only ones who benefit from housing exploitation; many homeowners do, too, their property values propped up by the collective effort to make housing scarce and expensive. The banking and payday lending industries profit from the financial exploitation of the poor, but so do those of us with free checking accounts at Bank of America or Wells Fargo, as those accounts are subsidized by billions of dollars in overdraft fees. If we burn coal, we get electricity, but we get sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide and other airborne toxins, too. We can’t have the electricity without producing the pollution. Opulence in America works the same way. Someone bears the cost.

Second, we prioritize the subsidization of affluence over the alleviation of poverty. The United States could effectively end poverty in America tomorrow without increasing the deficit if it cracked down on corporations and families who cheat on their taxes, reallocating the newfound revenue to those most in need of it. Instead, we let the rich slide and give the most to those who have plenty already, creating a welfare state that heavily favors the upper class. And then our elected officials have the audacity—the shamelessness, really—to fabricate stories about poor people’s dependency on government aid and shoot down proposals to reduce poverty because they would cost too much. Glancing at the price tag of some program that would cut child poverty in half or give all Americans access to a doctor, they suck their teeth and ask, “But how can we afford it?” How can we afford it? What a sinful question. What a selfish, dishonest question, one asked as if the answer wasn’t staring us straight in the face. We could afford it if we allowed the IRS to do its job. We could afford it if the well-off among us took less from the government. We could afford it if we designed our welfare state to expand opportunity and not guard fortunes.

Third, we create prosperous and exclusive communities. And in doing so, we not only create neighborhoods with concentrated riches but also neighborhoods with concentrated despair—the externality of stockpiled opportunity. Wealth traps breed poverty traps. The concentration of affluence breeds more affluence, and the concentration of poverty, more poverty. To be poor is miserable, but to be poor and surrounded by poverty on all sides is a much deeper cut.Likewise, to be rich and surrounded by riches on all sides is a level of privilege of another order.

We need not be debt collectors or private prison wardens to play a role in producing poverty in America. We need only to vote yes on policies that lead to private opulence and public squalor and, with that opulence, build a life behind a wall that we tend and maintain. We may plaster our wall with Gadsden flags or rainbow flags, All Lives Matter signs or Black Lives Matter signs. The wall remains the wall, indifferent to our decorations.”]

matthew desmond, from poverty: by america, 2023

[modern-world]

The Global Filipino Citizen: Integrating Nationalism, Internationalism, Globalism, and Patriotism

Introduction

In today’s interconnected world, the idea of the “Global Filipino Citizen” has become increasingly important. To define this concept, it is essential to integrate the values of nationalism, patriotism, internationalism, and globalism. These concepts together shape the identity and role of Filipinos in a global community, balancing love of country with openness to the world.

Body

Understanding the Concepts

Nationalism refers to loyalty and devotion to the nation. It emphasizes cultural pride, historical heritage, and national unity. For Filipinos, this means valuing our traditions, language, and identity.

Patriotism is love for and commitment to one’s country, often shown through service and sacrifice. It goes beyond mere pride, motivating citizens to improve the nation.

Internationalism promotes cooperation among nations, recognizing shared goals and problems. It encourages Filipinos to build friendships abroad and collaborate on issues like climate change and peace.

Globalism is the idea that the world is interconnected economically, politically, socially, and culturally. It encourages Filipinos to see themselves as part of a global community with shared responsibilities.

How These Concepts Shape the Global Filipino Citizen

A Global Filipino Citizen is someone who proudly carries their Filipino identity while actively engaging with the world.

Nationalism and Patriotism ensure that even while living or working abroad (like many OFWs do), Filipinos retain love for their homeland. They send remittances, promote Filipino culture, and uphold our values.

Internationalism guides Filipinos to work with other nations for shared goals. For instance, Filipino professionals in international organizations advocate for humanitarian aid, environmental protection, or health care.

Globalism prepares Filipinos to thrive in a borderless world. Through technology, education, and travel, they connect with diverse cultures while sharing their own.

Real-Life Contexts

OFWs (Overseas Filipino Workers) embody these ideas by contributing to the Philippine economy while adapting to international communities.

Filipino students in exchange programs learn global perspectives while sharing Filipino culture.

Organizations like Gawad Kalinga collaborate internationally for development and poverty alleviation.

During crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, Filipino health workers abroad displayed patriotism and internationalism by serving in other countries while sending help home.

Reflections

As a college student, I can embody these ideas by:

Learning Philippine history and culture deeply (nationalism).

Volunteering in civic projects (patriotism).

Participating in international conferences or cultural exchanges (internationalism).

Staying informed about global issues and advocating for solutions (globalism).

Conclusion

A Global Filipino Citizen balances love of country with openness to the world. By integrating nationalism, patriotism, internationalism, and globalism, Filipinos can preserve their unique identity while contributing meaningfully to the global community.

Reflection: How can I, as a student, practice being a Global Filipino Citizen?

As a student, I can practice being a Global Filipino Citizen by first embracing my Filipino identity—learning about our history, culture, and values. I will show nationalism and patriotism by participating in community service projects and helping address local issues. At the same time, I want to build international connections by joining student exchange programs, attending global conferences, and learning foreign languages. I will stay aware of global issues such as climate change, human rights, and poverty, and advocate for solutions that benefit both our country and the world. By balancing love for the Philippines with openness to learning from other cultures, I can help build a better, more connected global community.

[transgenders98]

THE CHALLENGES WE FACE WE AS THE LGBTIQ 🌈🌈🌈

1. Violence and Discrimination: Living in a hostile environment, we confront daily threats to our safety and well-being solely because of our sexual orientation, identities and expression. Homophobic refugees and host community subject us to physical, emotional, and psychological violence, perpetuating a cycle of discrimination that exacerbates our suffering.

2. Unemployment and Economic Disadvantage: Discrimination extends to the job market and refugee centers, severely limiting employment opportunities for LGBTQIA+ individuals. The resulting unemployment further compounds our vulnerability and restricts access to essential resources and services.

3. Limited Access to Basic Necessities: The camp's harsh conditions pose additional challenges as we struggle with insufficient food, clothing, clean water, and vital nutrition. Basic necessities such as cooking essentials, toothpaste, and pads for lesbians are luxuries we often lack, leaving us in a perpetual state of hardship.

4. Health and Safety Risks: The semi-arid climate of Kakuma Camp is host to sharp thornes and poisonous creatures, including scorpions, endangering our lives on a daily basis. Access to proper medical care is limited, exposing us to various health risks and making it difficult to address both physical and mental health concerns.

Our call from you our fellow LGBTQIA+ people and well wishers

We are reaching out to you, kind-hearted individuals and organizations who recognize that love knows no boundaries. By contributing to our fundraising efforts, you can help alleviate the suffering of LGBTQIA+ individuals in Kakuma Camp and restore hope in our lives. Your support, no matter how small, will have a meaningful impact on our vulnerable community. Together, we can effect positive change and foster an environment of acceptance, understanding, and equality.

How Your Donation Will Make a Difference:

1. Safety and Security: Your donations will enable us to establish safe spaces within the camp, where LGBTQIA+ individuals can find solace, support, and protection from violence and discrimination. We will work towards fostering an environment that values diversity and promotes acceptance.

2. Empowerment and Education: By investing in educational programs and vocational training, we can empower LGBTQIA+ individuals with the skills and knowledge needed to secure employment and become self-sufficient. This will enable us to break the cycle of poverty and dependency.

3. Access to Basic Necessities: Your generous contributions will help us provide essential resources such as food, clothing, clean water, cooking essentials, toiletries, and other daily necessities that are currently lacking in our lives. Together, we can ensure that no LGBTQIA+ person in Kakuma Camp goes without these vital provisions.

4. Healthcare

With your support, we aim to provide accessible healthcare facilities to our fellow LGBTQIA+ asylum seekers who get left outside the line of receiving proper medical care due to the discrimination and persecution that extends up to the all refugee medical centers

Conclusion:

As members of the LGBTQIA+ community, we are forced to endure unimaginable hardships and discrimination in Kakuma Refugee Camp. Your support can make a difference by providing hope, dignity, and equality to LGBTQIA+ individuals who are suffering in silence. We seek for all your support , please share this information as you help us create a voice of awareness.

[dressthesage]

Yeah, there is no way in hell I'm voting for Kid-Killer Kamala Harris.

+ She is the one who has been carrying out Biden's shift on border policy, which is to the RIGHT of Trump and the Republicans. Families and kids seaking asylum are STILL getting put in cages at the border, y'all just stopped pretending to care once a Dem was in office.

+ Biden's team has made it clear her position on Israel is IDENTICAL to his. She may have called for a temporary pause and called it a ceasefire, but she will not stop funding the genocide in Gaza. Most every major Palestinian organization in the U.S. has made it clear that they do not agree with those trying to say voting blue is "harm reduction" for Gaza. Democrats are party to a genocide, there should not be an "acceptable amount" of genocide a candidate can be party to and still get your vote.

+Harris's history as a prosecutor is rife with transphobia. She threw trans women in men's prisons and fought tooth and nail to deny them access to gender affirming care.

+ she supported Biden's gutting of food stamps, unemployment, and the child tax credit that threw millions of people off of life saving poverty alleviation programs.

+Harris will also most likely maintain the shift to the right Biden began earlier this year, where they're now saying there are certain kinds of gender affirming care trans youth should not have access to, and that trans kids can be barred from sports in specific instances.

+Harris is a cop through and through. Her history as a prosecutor is full of her targeting poor black moms and locking them up for their kids having a truancy.

+ She backed Biden's inaction on protecting abortion rights. Roe could've been enshrined in the first year of Biden's term if the Dems were willing to get rid of the filibuster but refused! A single executive order could have opened federal land to abortion providers nation wide, protection abortion access even in red states but the Dems refused to act beyond fundraising.

+She backed Biden's push for 100k new cops on the streets of the U.S., and the repression that has been used to target pro Palestine protests since October.

The fundamental issue is that the Democrats are recycling the 2016 playbook. They are offering us a candidate with a HORRIBLE track record on every major issue that they would need to mobilize voters like they need.

They have no program to run on that can offer the people that offers any concessions to mobilize their base. Their only strategy is to threaten us with trump and that DID NOT WORK ON 2016 AND WONT WORK NOW.

You can't win elections just off threatening your enemy, you have to have something to actually offer people. Anyone who comes in these comments screaming about "harm reduction" is a joke because our lives have all actively become worse under Biden because the Democrats have nothing to offer and are not interested in helping people beyond offering lip service! There is no harm reduction when both of the candidates are planning to support a genocide. There is no "lesser of 2 genocides".

We need to build an independent movement, outside of the Democrats and their cynical campaigning that can actually fight for our rights year round, not just when they need our vote. We need to be organizing in the streets, with our community, to not just ask but demand the changes we need and shut shit down if the people in office, Dem or Rep, refuse.

The only campaign and party really speaking to this, and the one I encourage everyone to check out and vote for, is Claudia De La Cruz and Karina Garcia, running for the Vote Socialist 2024 campaign. They've made it clear they don't just want your votes, they want you. They want to bring people into the movement that can actually fight for their rights regardless of who wins the election. They have a program demanding actual change, and are on track to be on enough state ballots that they could actually reach 270 electors!

I highly encourage people to check them out.

[foggieststars]

really intrigued by ur masters program. could u tell us more abt it? what sort of reading did u do, ur thesis etc etc

for sure!! i studied comparative social policy, which is essentially a study of the history of welfare state development - policies which are 'social', i.e. in that they are designed to support people. think things like pensions, welfare benefits, healthcare, poverty-reduction, things like that!

more under the cut :)

the programme i studied had a focus on OECD countries, which are generally divided into 3 types of welfare states: (1) liberal welfare states, which tend to be anglosphere countries, so the uk, ireland, australia and new zealand - some models include the US, and some don't because the US is an outlier in that... it just doesn't have a lot of the welfare benefits that other anglosphere countries have (think free healthcare, guaranteed maternity leave) on a federal level. (2) is social-democratic welfare states, which tend to be more generous and universal (nordic countries), and finally (3) conservative welfare states, countries like germany and france where welfare rights have a history of being linked to class struggle and workers rights, and are more likely to be linked to your occupation.

this isn't an all-encompassing model and there have been many attempts to update it to include asian/african/latin american welfare states (this is an extremely eurocentric model) and add nuance to the conversation, but just a general overview of the types of stuff we discussed!

in terms of things i studied specifically, i focused on gender and poverty as my two options, looking at ways that welfare states can alleviate/worsen poverty and gender inequality. it was really fascinating stuff but ultimately hampered by the fact that oxford is an extremely old fashioned organisation and didn't have much in the way of diversity in reading lists.. so it had to be found by myself lmao

as for my dissertation, i compared the levels of generosity in welfare benefit allocation between the united kingdom and the republic of ireland. the uk introduced restrictive welfare legislation which prevented the majority of non-european immigrants from accessing welfare (known as no recourse to public funds) in 1995, but ireland didn't until 2007, so i wanted to know why that was. ultimately i found it was because of 2 things: 1. differing levels of economic prosperity - ireland's economy was stratospheric before the 2008 crash, and the uk not so much. ireland didn't want to introduce deterrent legislation to prevent immigrants coming to ireland because they needed immigrants to join the labour force. and (2) the rhetoric of public debate in the uk was much more harshly anti-immigrant than in ireland, thanks to thatcherism (lol). ireland wasn't exactly Positive about immigration, but political debate had a lot more to do with the economy and appeals to emotion vs in the uk the rhetoric was much more fiercely us vs them, if that makes sense. it was an interesting project!!

[darkmaga-returns]

By Rick Moran

The World Bank was created, in part, to help alleviate the extreme poverty in about 10% of the world’s population. That’s 700 million people living on less than $2 a day.

The bank gets its funding from contributions made by rich nations. However, a recent decision to divert 45% of its development funds from poverty programs to climate change programs is meant more to assuage the guilt of rich nations than to help the poor climb out of poverty.

About $40 billion a year from the World Bank is now earmarked to fund climate change mitigation efforts. Naturally, with that much loose cash floating around, sticky fingers are busy “misplacing” the money, and isn’t that a darn shame?

An investigation by Oxfam of the World Bank’s finances shows that anywhere between $24 and $41 billion of “misplaced funds” has gone missing due to “poor record-keeping practices, says Oxfam.

And yes, these funds were likely stolen.

Oxfam:

An Oxfam audit of the World Bank’s 2017-2023 climate finance portfolio found that between $24 billion and $41 billion in climate finance went unaccounted for between the time projects were approved and when they closed. There is no clear public record showing where this money went or how it was used, which makes any assessment of its impacts impossible. It also remains unclear whether these funds were even spent on climate-related initiatives intended to help low- and middle-income countries protect people from the impacts of the climate crisis and invest in clean energy.

“The Bank is quick to brag about its climate finance billions —but these numbers are based on what it plans to spend, not on what it actually spends once a project gets rolling,” said Kate Donald, Head of Oxfam International’s Washington, D.C., Office. “This is like asking your doctor to assess your diet only by looking at your grocery list, without ever checking what actually ends up in your fridge.”

“There is no clear public record showing where this money went or how it was used”? This is truly major-league grifting. The World Bank bureaucrats should get some kind of award for this.

[thebiscuiteternal]

The entire story is brutal and worth reading, but I want to point out some of the fact points interspersed in the second part, because they highlight just how fucking little the assholes who built this post-Roe-reversal system care.

Research indicates access to paid family leave is linked to a decrease in infant deaths and better economic, physical and mental health for new parents. Currently, 13 states have some form of paid parental leave to care for newborns. No states that banned abortion offer paid parental leave.

In 2019, nearly half of Tennesseans lived in a child care desert, an area that has three times as many children as licensed child care slots. In Mayron’s city, Clarksville, more than 3,000 children in 2023 qualified for government assistance for child care, but 941 were unable to access it. Between 2011 and 2020, 13 bills aimed at alleviating child care burdens were proposed in the Tennessee legislature. All of them failed.

In Tennessee, a family of four making less than $39,000 a year should be eligible for food stamps if their current bank balance is under $3,001 and they share their household with a person over 60 or with a disability. Tennessee’s child poverty rate ranks among the worst in the nation, in part, because families who qualify for government help aren’t getting it. About 1 in 10 families eligible for food stamps aren’t receiving them. According to researchers, the program requirements are too punitive and complicated, leaving such families shut out. In 2019, the state was holding nearly $800 million in unspent federal funding designated for temporary assistance to needy families. Since then, monthly benefits for eligible Tennesseeans have barely risen, from $277 to $387 in 2021. That ranks among the lowest in the nation for temporary cash assistance.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Impact of Extreme Wealth on Society: Unraveling the Complex Web

In the 21st century, the issue of wealth inequality has reached unprecedented levels. The ultra-rich, a minuscule fraction of the global population, possess a staggering amount of wealth, often equivalent to that of entire countries. While wealth accumulation isn't inherently problematic, the concentration of extreme wealth in the hands of a few has far-reaching consequences for society. In this blog post, we'll explore how the ultra-rich have contributed to many of the problems we face today.

Wealth Inequality: Perhaps the most obvious consequence of extreme wealth is the exacerbation of wealth inequality. The gap between the richest and the rest has grown to alarming proportions. This inequality can lead to social unrest and hinder economic growth by limiting opportunities for the majority.

Economic Disparities: Extreme wealth often translates into disproportionate economic power. This can result in monopolistic practices, which stifle competition and innovation. Smaller businesses struggle to compete, leading to fewer choices for consumers.

Social Issues: Wealth inequality contributes to a host of social issues, including reduced access to education, healthcare, and housing for marginalized communities. It also perpetuates cycles of poverty that are difficult to escape.

Power and Influence: The ultra-rich have outsized political influence. They can shape public policies to their advantage, often at the expense of the common good. This undermines the democratic principles upon which many societies are built.

Corporate Dominance: Many of the wealthiest individuals are tied to large corporations. Their influence over these entities can lead to decisions that prioritize profits over environmental responsibility or workers' rights.

Political Lobbying: Lobbying efforts by the ultra-rich can influence legislation in their favor. This can result in tax breaks for the wealthy, further exacerbating wealth inequality.

Tax Evasion: Some of the ultra-rich engage in tax evasion schemes, depriving governments of revenue needed for essential public services. This places a heavier burden on ordinary taxpayers.

Public Policy: The ultra-rich can use their influence to push for policies that benefit them financially, such as reduced regulations or favorable trade agreements. These policies may not align with the best interests of society as a whole.

Poverty Alleviation: While philanthropy is common among the wealthy, it often falls short of addressing systemic issues. Charity, while commendable, cannot replace comprehensive government programs aimed at poverty alleviation.

Social Responsibility: Extreme wealth can lead to a detachment from the daily struggles of ordinary people. This lack of empathy can hinder efforts to address pressing social and economic challenges.

The impact of extreme wealth on society is a multifaceted issue. While it's crucial to acknowledge the positive contributions of wealthy individuals, it's equally important to scrutinize the consequences of concentrated wealth and power. Addressing these issues requires thoughtful public policy, increased transparency, and a commitment to a more equitable society. By recognizing the challenges posed by extreme wealth, we can work towards a more just and inclusive future for all.

[opusaid]

Today, I write not only as a displaced worker…

My name is Jeff D Williams, and until February 8, 2025, I was a dedicated employee of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). For over a decade, I served this agency with pride, believing in its mission to alleviate global poverty, deliver humanitarian aid, and foster international cooperation. Today, I write not only as a displaced worker but as a voice for the thousands of colleagues whose lives have been upended by the abrupt closure of USAID—a decision driven not by necessity but by political vendetta.

On that frigid February morning, I arrived at USAID’s Washington headquarters only to find the doors locked. An email notified us that 97% of the agency’s workforce—over 10,000 employees globally—had been placed on indefinite leave. My security badge no longer worked. Colleagues stood in shock, clutching cardboard boxes, denied even the dignity of retrieving personal items from their desks. The “Government Efficiency Department,” led by Elon Musk, had executed a corporate-style raid, freezing access to systems and branding us as “redundant” or worse, “criminals”.

Since that day, my family has spiraled into uncertainty. My savings, meant for my daughter’s college fund, now barely cover rent. Last week, my husband’s insulin rationing began—a cruel irony for someone who once coordinated medical aid for refugees. We are not alone. Former USAID staffers, from program officers to logistics experts, now drive Ubers, deliver groceries, or line up at food banks. One colleague, a single mother of three, sold her car to pay for her son’s asthma medication.

The administration claims this purge was about “cutting waste,” yet they erased an agency that allocated $40 billion annually to lifesaving programs: vaccines for children in conflict zones, drought-resistant crops for African farmers, disaster relief for typhoon survivors. Instead, they weaponized isolated examples—like a $47,000 grant for a Colombian transgender opera—to smear our life’s work as “leftist corruption”.

I joined USAID under President Trump’s first term, believing his pledge to “drain the swamp.” Little did I know that “the swamp” included civil servants like me—nonpartisan professionals who kept diplomacy alive even as politicians waged culture wars. Now, the agency’s remnants are being folded into the State Department, rebranded as a partisan tool for “MAGA cheerleaders”.

Worse still, this administration dismisses our suffering as collateral damage. When Senator Mitch McConnell called us “disposable,” I realized the truth: to them, we are not public servants but obstacles. They forget that our work in Ukraine saved lives during the Russian invasion, that our climate initiatives in Southeast Asia curbed deforestation. They forget because they never cared.

Mr. President, you once vowed to protect American workers. Yet your “efficiency” crusade has left families like mine in freefall. You vilify us as “Deep State” operatives, but we are teachers, veterans, parents. We are the Americans who built bridges abroad while you burned them at home.

To Congress: Stop this charade. Restore USAID’s funding, reinstate its nonpartisan mission, and honor the promises made to federal employees. To my fellow citizens: When a nation abandons its compassion, it loses its soul. Do not let our stories end here.

In solidarity,

Jeff D Williams

Former USAID Senior Program Officer

Washington, D.C.

[marpufoundationblogs]

Why Marpu Foundation is a Leader in CSR Excellence

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become a cornerstone of ethical business practices, and few organizations embody its principles as profoundly as the Marpu Foundation. With a relentless commitment to community upliftment, sustainability, and social impact, Marpu Foundation has set a benchmark for CSR excellence. Here’s why Marpu Foundation stands out as a leader in the field.

A Legacy of Social Impact

Marpu Foundation has consistently initiated and executed projects that address pressing social issues. From environmental conservation to education, healthcare, and poverty alleviation, their efforts span multiple sectors, making a tangible difference in communities across the country.

Education for All: Bridging the Literacy Gap

One of the foundation’s most remarkable contributions is in the field of education. Through scholarship programs, digital literacy drives, and school infrastructure development, Marpu Foundation has empowered thousands of underprivileged children with quality education. Their “Smart Classrooms” initiative has transformed traditional learning environments, making education more engaging and accessible.

Sustainability and Environmental Stewardship

Environmental sustainability is a core pillar of Marpu Foundation’s CSR strategy. Their large-scale tree plantation drives, water conservation projects, and waste management campaigns have helped restore ecological balance in numerous communities. By promoting sustainable practices, they encourage corporate and individual responsibility toward the environment.

Healthcare Initiatives: Accessible and Affordable Medical Care

Marpu Foundation’s healthcare initiatives have been instrumental in improving public health. Free medical camps, vaccination drives, and partnerships with local healthcare providers ensure that marginalized communities receive the medical attention they need. Their recent project, ‘Healthy Smiles,’ has provided dental care to over 10,000 children in rural areas.

Women Empowerment and Skill Development

Marpu Foundation actively supports women empowerment through skill development programs. By providing vocational training, micro-financing opportunities, and entrepreneurship workshops, they have enabled countless women to achieve financial independence and self-sufficiency.

Recognitions and Partnerships

The impact of Marpu Foundation’s work has not gone unnoticed. They have received numerous awards for their CSR initiatives and have established collaborations with major corporations, NGOs, and government bodies to scale their efforts. Their ability to forge meaningful partnerships amplifies their social impact and reinforces their position as a leader in CSR excellence.

Final Thoughts

Marpu Foundation exemplifies what it means to be a socially responsible organization. Their unwavering dedication to societal welfare, innovative solutions, and impactful projects make them a true leader in CSR excellence. As businesses and individuals look for inspiration in the world of corporate social responsibility, Marpu Foundation stands as a beacon of change.