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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (14273)	4/2/2012 12:19:28 AM
From: TopCat	4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

"Take only social security. Lift the cap and it is good for 75 years." Actually, SS isn't in that much trouble but I could go along with raising the retirement age and lifting the cap. But I do wonder why your president wanted to and succeeded in the lowering FICA amount instead of raising it as you are suggesting. "Too many poor lived in abject poverty before social security. We can not go back to that." Nobody is suggesting that we do so you can quit whining about that.

To: koan who wrote (14273)	4/2/2012 12:57:19 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

A silly cow after your own heart... Why do all the fruit loops live in Oregon? Climate Change Skepticism a Sickness That Must be “Treated,” Says Professor Global warming alarmist equates climate denial with racism Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Friday, March 30, 2012 Comparing skepticism of man-made global warming to racist beliefs, an Oregon-based professor of sociology and environmental studies has labeled doubts about anthropogenic climate change a “sickness” for which individuals need to be “treated”. Professor Kari Norgaard, who is currently appearing at the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, has presented a paper in which she argues that “cultural resistance” to accepting the premise that humans are responsible for climate change “must be recognized and treated” as an aberrant sociological behavior. Norgaard equates skepticism of climate change alarmists – whose data is continually proven to be politicized, agenda driven and downright inaccurate – with racism, noting that overcoming such viewpoints poses a similar challenge “to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.” “Professor Norgaard considers that fuzzy-studies academics such as herself must stand shoulder to shoulder with the actual real climate scientists who know some maths in an effort to change society and individuals for their own good. It’s not a new idea: trick-cyclists in Blighty and the US have lately called for a “science of communicating science” rather reminiscent of Isaac Asimov’s science-fictional “Psychohistory” discipline, able to predict and alter the behaviour of large populations,” reports the Register. As Jurriaan Maessen documented yesterday, the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ confab at which Norgaard is appearing to push this insane drivel is nothing other than a strategy session for neo-eugenicists to hone their population control agenda. A statement put out by the scientists behind the event calls for humans to be packed into denser cities (eco-gulags?) so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to mother nature. It’s a similar idea to the nightmare ‘Planned-Opolis’ proposal put out by the Forum for the Future organization last year, in which human activity will be tightly regulated by a dictatorial technocracy in the name of saving the planet. A d v e r t i s e m e n t The mindset of this gaggle of arrogant, scoffing elitists in their drive to micro-manage the human race, which they regard as a plague on the earth, is best encapsulated by the following quote from ‘Planet Under Pressure’ attendee and Yale University professor Karen Seto. “We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together],” Seto told MSNBC. The effort to re-brand legitimate scientific dissent as a mental disorder that requires pharmacological or psychological treatment is a frightening glimpse into the Brave New World society climate change alarmists see themselves as ruling over. Due to the fact that skepticism towards man-made global warming is running at an all time high, and with good reason, rather than admit they have lost the debate, climate change alarmists are instead advocating that their ideological opponents simply be drugged or brainwashed into compliance. Norgaard’s effort to equate climate skepticism with racism as a disorder that requires “treatment” also serves as a reminder of the story we covered earlier this month about the establishment’s efforts to push the pharmaceutical heart drug Propranolol as a “cure” for racist thoughts. ********************* Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

To: koan who wrote (14273)	4/2/2012 9:32:15 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

Higher Education: Here’s a surprise Published April 2, 2012 \| By Bruce McQuain OK, I’m being facetious in the title. Well, at least for those who’ve been paying attention. For the rest, this may actually come as a surprise: Political activism has drawn the University of California into an academic death spiral. Too many professors believe their job is to "advance social justice" rather than teach the subject they were hired to teach. Groupthink has replaced lively debate. Institutions that were designed to stir intellectual curiosity aren’t challenging young minds. They’re churning out "ignorance." So argues a new report, "A Crisis of Competence: The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the University of California," from the conservative California Association of Scholars. My guess is, and I think this would be easily substantiated, that the U of C system is just an example of the problem, not the sole problem. ( The study is here.) Of course the left has a ready answer for all of this: UC Berkeley political science Professor Wendy Brown rejected that argument. (Yes, she hails from the left, she said, but she doesn’t teach left.) The reason behind the unbalance, she told me, is that conservatives don’t go to grad school to study political science. When conservatives go to graduate school, she added, they tend to study business or law. "If the argument is that what is going on is some kind of systematic exclusion," then critics have to target "where the discouragement happens." So, other than “stereotypes are us”, Prof. Brown has no real explanation. Because, of course, unless all “conservatives” go to business and law and none to political science (which we know isn’t true), the problem isn’t about who does or doesn’t got into grad school, but who gets hired by universities, isn’t it? And most people with a modicum of common sense know that most people who hire have a tendency to hire people like what? Like them. And anyway, it appears its not really about learning or acquiring skills such as critical thinking: At the same time, grades have risen. "Students often report that all they must do to get a good grade is regurgitate what their activist professors believe," quoth the report. Hardly an atmosphere (akin to a “hostile workplace”, no?)in which a “conservative” would feel comfortable and certainly not one in which a critical thinker would be welcome. Peter Berkowitz took a look at the study and concluded that the result was much worse than imagined: The politicization of higher education by activist professors and compliant university administrators deprives students of the opportunity to acquire knowledge and refine their minds. It also erodes the nation’s civic cohesion and its ability to preserve the institutions that undergird democracy in America. […] The analysis begins from a nonpolitical fact: Numerous studies of both the UC system and of higher education nationwide demonstrate that students who graduate from college are increasingly ignorant of history and literature. They are unfamiliar with the principles of American constitutional government. And they are bereft of the skills necessary to comprehend serious books and effectively marshal evidence and argument in written work. In other words, they’re indoctrinated and not taught to think critically. And, per the study, they’re actually ignorant of “the institutions that undergird democracy in America”. That would, in part, explain their ‘shock’ at the validity of the arguments against ObamaCare (so there’s your example of the point). Granted, this is but one study, it’s by a conservative group and there may be a bit of confirmation bias concerned on my part, but I’d love to see the left really document an actual challenge to its substantive points instead of doing what they usually do – wave it away. While it may be one study by a conservative group, it does note that which Berkowitz points out – “numerous studies” of the system demonstrate the facts listed, i.e. an increasing ignorance of history and literature, unfamiliarity with the principles of American constitutional government, lacking skills necessary to comprehend serious writing, marshal evidence and argue their point effectively. Or, in other words, think critically. Wait, isn’t that what universities are supposed to teach? Start there. Explain. HT: Instapundit ~McQ

To: koan who wrote (14273)	4/2/2012 11:23:09 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 85487

Lift the cap Lifting the cap is a massive and harmful tax increase. Not only would a 15.3 percentage point tax increase cause all sorts of economic harm (at least if its actually paid), but it (again if there is no way around it) would suppress economic activity which would reduce revenue counteracting your expected increase. And it would be wildly avoided. Its a tax on payroll, more of the rich people who would be covered would then get compensation in forms other than payroll, capital gains, profits from partnerships, gold plated health insurance (if PPACA doesn't make that form of compensation to expensive with higher taxes), access to ritzy corporate facilities and vehicles, probably other things I can't even think of but which clever people motivated by monetary gain surely can.