Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (574154)	6/28/2010 3:14:30 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574595

Ted, a state that has voted Democrat in the past five elections doesn't suffer from lack of liberalism. Read my lips.......CA does not have enough money to operate. I know........I lived there for over ten years. It has little to do with liberalism but all to do with conservatism.....more specifically Prop. 13. That law was passed when CA was still a conservative state. With Prop 13 passed, conservatives rode the housing boom that ensued after its passage and then cashed in their chips and moved to other states like AZ. I am not sure what it will take for you to understand that very basic concept........a kick in the ass? But I repeat......CA does not have enough money to provide the services most states provide. That's why there are long lines at DOT and other state agencies. Things are a mess and only getting worse. Its a crying shame....after all, CA was once the golden state.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (574154)	6/28/2010 4:41:49 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574595

Here's just one small example of to what I am referring. "Public health officials say California's lackluster immunization rates could be a factor in the epidemic spread of whooping cough, a bacterial disease expected to take its largest toll in the state in five decades. California is one of only 11 states that does not require middle school students to receive a booster shot against whooping cough, also known as pertussis, which infects the respiratory system. The state is the only one in the nation to report such a dramatic surge in pertussis, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Five newborn babies in California have died so far this year, and at least 910 people are confirmed to have the illness. <skip> Efforts to require the whooping cough shot in adolescents have stalled in the California Legislature in recent years because of the budget crisis. Support has been widespread in the Assembly, but the bill has failed to win support in the Senate appropriations committee. One concern is that California would have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for vaccinations for children on Medi-Cal, the government insurance program for the poor, said Assemblyman Juan Arambula (unaffiliated- Fresno), who has been trying to require the shot since early 2008. "Sometimes we can be penny-wise but pound-foolish," said Arambula. He said the cost of immunizations would be less than the state's future cost of paying infected children's hospital bills. Public health officials also worry that some parents may decline vaccination because they believe that vaccines cause autism, an idea that has been studied and rejected by scientists. Dr. Robert Benjamin, deputy health officer for the Alameda County Public Health Department, said the whooping cough epidemic should cause parents to reexamine their decision to skip or delay recommended vaccinations. "Anyone who has experienced pertussis, either themselves or in their kids, they know this is not a disease to mess with," Benjamin said. "This is a disease that can kill the most vulnerable newborns — not only in their households, but in the households of other people." ron.lin@latimes.com Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times latimes.com

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (574154)	6/28/2010 6:56:11 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574595

Why Do British Conservatives Treat Deficits So Differently? Barry Gewen June 28, 2010 \| 12:18 pm Every once in a while, one experiences a “clarifying moment,” foreshadowing an important policy debate that hasn’t yet taken shape. In 2003, for example, just before the Iraq war began, I heard Paul Berman give a talk to a group of liberals and leftists on his new book, “Terror and Liberalism.” The reception was almost uniformly hostile, so much so that Berman warned that the left was in danger of demonizing George Bush in the same way that the right had demonized Bill Clinton. He was prescient. The syndrome is called “Bush Derangement,” and it continues to afflict many on the left. A few weeks ago, I experienced another of those clarifying moments, this time involving the right and bringing to light an important distinction between Americans and the British. I was at a dinner party dominated by conservatives, where the main speaker was a prominent economist who had worked in the Bush administration. The subject was the danger from the growing national debt, and there was general agreement around the table about the kinds of actions that would be necessary: an end to mortgage deductions, a tax on employer-provided health benefits, a value-added tax on consumption. New Jersey governor Christopher J. Christie was praised for taking on his state’s unions. The discussion, I thought, had gone too far in one direction, and I spoke up: “So you’re going to take away my mortgage deduction and tax my health benefits and make me pay more for everything I purchase. I think I’m a reasonable guy, but I’m beginning to feel like one of those Greek workers out on the streets protesting the government cuts. Where are the tax increases for Wall Street and those corporate executives making millions?” The economist replied that you couldn’t collect enough revenue by taxing the rich and, inevitably, it was the middle class that was going to have to pay. Only later, when I experienced a shiver of l’esprit d’escalier, did I realize I should have responded: It isn’t just a matter of economics or of numbers, it’s also a question of fairness. Gov. Christie is ready to cut aid to education, yet he also wants to reduce the tax on millionaires. But if we’re in a debt crisis (and, granted, there are economists like Paul Krugman who take a different view), then the pain should be shared. One of the dissenters at the dinner that evening was a British economics journalist. It was he who reminded me of the striking difference between British and American conservatives, a difference that was highlighted by David Cameron’s important speech at Milton Keynes earlier this month. Cameron declared that Britain’s economic crisis was much worse than he had anticipated before he took office, and that drastic cuts would be necessary. But he also said “I want this Government to carry out Britain’s unavoidable deficit reduction plan in a way that strengthens and unites the country,” and, “I have said before that as we deal with the debt crisis we must take the whole country with us—and I mean it.” He added that George Osborne, his chancellor of the exchequer, also meant it when he said “we are all in this together.” We’ll have to wait until all the reactions are in to Cameron’s June 22 emergency budget before we can determine just how much he meant it, but it’s worth noting that “we are all in this together” is part of a long line of British thinking going back to Edmund Burke (and including Churchill). It indicates a very different outlook from the laissez-faire, everyone’s-on-his-own perspective that dominates conservative thought in the United States. Tony Judt has observed that the American right derives its ideas not from a British tradition but from libertarian Austrians like Friedrich von Hayek, whose suspicion of the state came from their encounters with totalitarianism. Whatever the case, it seems that at the present moment Anglophone conservatives on the two sides of the Atlantic are speaking very different languages. tnr.com

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (574154)	6/28/2010 7:29:27 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574595

I don't know if you've seen the clip of Chris Brown at the BET awards last nite where he takes on MJ's singing and dancing. I was never much of a MJ fan but when I saw Brown mimick MJ's dance moves, I realized then just what a genius MJ was and what a loss for the entertainment world his death is. People are praising Brown for his moves but in my mind, they paled in comparison. It seems MJ had a style that was very much his own and can not be duplicated even by one of his 'disciples'.