Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 28, 2016, 08:59:19 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94228 Posts in 2307 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 56 57 [58] 59 60 ... 107
2851  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / learn all one can about the enemy and slowly gain advantage on: December 23, 2011, 11:48:26 AM
Sun Tzu in practice.  I suspose Brockster thinks we will gain learn more about them then vice versa which will neutralize them

Historically the US seems to get duped every time with this sort of strategy.  We continue to give it all away:
 
Inside the Ring
By Bill Gertz
-
The Washington Times

7:51 p.m., Wednesday, December 21, 2011
NUKE SCIENTIST EXCHANGE PLANNED

Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel B. Poneman is working on a major Obama administration initiative that would renew scientist exchanges between U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories and Chinese nuclear facilities.

The idea is aimed at promoting openness and transparency by China’s military about its secret, large-scale buildup of nuclear weapons, according to U.S. officials.

Critics say the plan is similar to an exchange program in the 1990s that sent U.S. nuclear scientists to China and produced one of the worst cases of nuclear espionage. Secrets about every deployed warhead in the U.S. arsenal were compromised, including the W-88 small nuclear warhead deployed on submarine-launched missiles.

“We’ve seen this movie before, and it has a bad ending,” one official said.

Officials familiar with the plan told Inside the Ring that the initiative was discussed during a recent policy committee meeting of senior national security officials at the White House.

The initiative is part of the administration’s arms-control-centered security policies. According to the officials, the administration hopes to coax the reluctant Chinese communist leadership and its military into engaging the United States in strategic nuclear talks, something China so far has refused.

“This is a way to reach out to [the Chinese] with multilateral arms-control programs,” said a second U.S. official familiar with the plan.

The initiative likely will face opposition from Congress.

House Republicans added language to the 2012 Defense Authorization Act that restricts the Pentagon and Energy department from cooperating with Beijing in setting up a nuclear security center in China. The provision, when signed into law, will block funding for the center until the secretary of defense certifies that China has halted nuclear proliferation and that the center will be in line with U.S. interests.

U.S. intelligence has linked China to nuclear arms proliferation in Pakistan and other emerging nuclear states.

The second official said the plan evokes memories of the 1990s case of Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Wen Ho Lee.

Former Energy Department intelligence chief Notra Trulock stated in his 2003 book that Lee, a scientist at Los Alamos’ weapons-designing X Division, provided sensitive nuclear weapons data to China during unreported meetings with nuclear weapons scientists as part of Energy’s exchange programs.

Lee was the U.S. government’s chief suspect in the compromise of W-88 warhead secrets to China.

The FBI, however, mishandled the case against him, and he was never charged with espionage. Instead, he pleaded guilty in September 2001 to a felony charge of mishandling classified information.

Lee denied being a spy and said he was targeted by the FBI because he is Chinese-American.

The FBI has said as recently as last year that it is still investigating the theft of U.S. nuclear secrets by China from the 1990s. But no one has been arrested for the crime since the Lee case.

U.S. counterintelligence in 1998 warned about China’s aggressive intelligence targeting of nuclear scientists. It stated that “rather than send its intelligence officers out to recruit knowledgeable sources at facilities such as the national laboratories, China prefers to exploit over time the natural scientist-to-scientist relationships.”

“Chinese scientists nurture relationships with national laboratory counterparts, issuing invitations for them to travel to laboratories and conferences in China,” the report on foreign spying against laboratories said.

Security officials say renewing the nuclear lab exchange also would reward China for massive cyberattacks against nuclear labs that have been ongoing for decades.

Story Continues →

‹‹ previous 1 2 next ››  About the AuthorBill Gertz
Bill Gertz is national security editor and a national security and investigative reporter for The Washington Times. He has been with The Times since 1985.

He is the author of six books, four of them national best-sellers. His latest book, “The Failure Factory,” on government bureaucracy and national security, was published in September 2008.

Mr. Gertz also writes a weekly .
2852  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: December 23, 2011, 10:00:33 AM
"As Pater Tenebrarum explained in a recent post, the whole world seems to have bought into this statist/interventionist view of the economic world. Most of the disenchanted analysts, in fact, are upset not because of these interventions, but because they want a really large new QE program -- or some other extravagantly inflationist program from the central banks. It's a form of massive, delusional optimism with respect to the power and effectiveness of government intervention."

The concept of "globalization" includes debt and playing card monte.   It is all towards the inevitable one world government.
I guess by the time thw whole thing is pushed to it's worldwide limitations and the whole wolrd economy crashes we will life on another planet and pass the ponzi scheme buck onto the aliens.

Crafty,

There is NO hope of stopping this.
I tend to blame Bush the elder for this globalization thing but I may be wrongly holding him responsible for something that was probably inevitable anyway.  OTOH globalizaition of say markets and say coaperative goals like ending world hunger, protecting the environment could perhaps be done and thus globalization and the role of big government are not inextricably mixed per se.
Certainly smaller countires do not have the private sector that can take on other challenges without the goverment intervening.  The larger ones could.

 

 

2853  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Newt Gingrich on: December 22, 2011, 02:21:27 PM
"I address ONLY the point concerning his lack of support from the Wash. establishment."

Am I incorrect in noting that almost no prominent Rep has come out in big support of Newt?
Perhaps I have simply missed this or the MSM is NOT reporting it.  No surprise there.

If this is the case than this a real eye opener.  I mean even people who have worked closely with him will not speak up for him?

I also am not sure of what to make of his comment months back about Republicans must stop their social engineering.  Remember this and he caught flack?   I know exactly what he is talking about and so do the repubs who bashed him.   Yet seeing tapes of him complimenting and even perhaps emulating TR FDR and Nixon certainly suggests he is not historically for ending Rep engineering.  Indeed Scarbroough who I dislike maybe did have a point when he stated the reason the repubs got rid of Newt wasn't the gov. shutdown or the marital affairs but that he wasn't conservative enough!

I say this while recognizing that Scarborough sits every day agreeing with socialists for his TV show.
2854  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Newt and FDR and Wilson and TR? Wowwww! on: December 21, 2011, 01:19:06 PM
Some great posts with good insight into Gingrich on this board.  Thanks to all.

He certainly does sound like he is more akin to TR, Nixon, even FDR.

This comment, "More damaging to his Presidential candidacy is that Mr. Gingrich doesn't seem to understand why anyone is offended."

couple this  with his statement the other day saying something about America is fed up with "the Washington establishment" is enough for me.  I heard him say that and all I could think of is what a hypocrit - reminds me too much of CLinton hypocracy and deceit.

It really is astounding to hear so many Republicans come out in full force against him.  Even people who are playing it safe and not speaking negatively publically, are trashing him by their silence and their patent refusal to endorse him.

I am not clear that any big names on the Repub side are for him.  Has anyone heard a single prominent Repub leader come out and forcefully speak up for him - other than maybe John Bolten (who might be his secretary of state)?

I am shocked at how disliked he appears to be by anyone and everyone who knows him well.

I for one cannot ignore this.  AS long as Romney can keep coming out swinging and show me he is in for the fight of this countyr's life - he is my man.   I am almost there.

This video of him praising FDR like he does - that's almost it for me.

Thoughts anyone?

2855  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / East India Company: a historical study of private/state enterprise on: December 21, 2011, 12:54:50 PM
A little bit long winded but worth the read for a history lesson on a government/private business that affected world history.
There are many present day comparisons in China, Russia, Venezuela, Brazil, oand others and some more occult situations in the US such as GE and Obama administration:


*****The East India Company
The Company that ruled the waves
As state-backed firms once again become forces in global business, we ask what they can learn from the greatest of them all
Dec 17th 2011 | from the print edition

A POPULAR parlour game among historians is debating when the modern world began. Was it when Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press, in 1440? Or when Christopher Columbus discovered America, in 1492? Or when Martin Luther published his 95 theses, in 1517? All popular choices. But there is a strong case to be made for a less conventional answer: the modern world began on a freezing New Year’s Eve, in 1600, when Elizabeth I granted a company of 218 merchants a monopoly of trade to the east of the Cape of Good Hope.

The East India Company foreshadowed the modern world in all sorts of striking ways. It was one of the first companies to offer limited liability to its shareholders. It laid the foundations of the British empire. It spawned Company Man. And—particularly relevant at the moment—it was the first state-backed company to make its mark on the world.

Twenty years ago, as the state abandoned the commanding heights of the economy in the name of privatisation and deregulation, it looked as if these public-private hybrids were doomed. Today they are flourishing in the emerging world’s dynamic economies and striding out onto the global stage.

State-controlled companies account for 80% of the market capitalisation of the Chinese stockmarket, more than 60% of Russia’s, and 35% of Brazil’s. They make up 19 of the world’s 100 biggest multinational companies and 28 of the top 100 among emerging markets. World-class state companies can be found in almost every industry. China Mobile serves 600m customers. Saudi Arabia’s SABIC is one of the world’s most profitable chemical companies. Emirates airlines is growing at 20% a year. Thirteen of the world’s biggest oil companies are state-controlled. So is the world’s biggest natural-gas company, Gazprom.

State-owned companies will continue to thrive. The emerging markets that they prosper in are expected to grow at 5.5% a year compared with the rich world’s 1.6%, and the model is increasingly popular. The Chinese and Russian governments are leading a fashion for using the state’s power to produce national champions in a growing range of “strategic” industries.

The parallels between the East India Company and today’s state-owned firms are not exact, to be sure. The East India Company controlled a standing army of some 200,000 men, more than most European states. None of today’s state-owned companies has yet gone this far, though the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) has employed former People’s Liberation Army troops to protect oil wells in Sudan. The British government did not own shares in the Company (though prominent courtiers and politicians certainly did). Today’s state-capitalist governments hold huge blocks of shares in their favourite companies.

Otherwise the similarities are striking. Both the Company and its modern descendants serve two masters, keeping one eye on their share price and the other on their political patrons. Many of today’s state-owned companies are monopolies or quasi-monopolies: Brazil’s Petrobras, China Mobile, China State Construction Engineering Corporation and Mexico’s Federal Electricity Commission, to name but a few of the mongrel giants that bestride the business world these days. Many are enthusiastic globalisers, venturing abroad partly as moneymaking organisations and partly as quasi-official agents of their home governments. Many are keen not only on getting their government to provide them with soft loans and diplomatic muscle but also on building infrastructure—roads, hospitals and schools—in return for guaranteed access to raw materials. Although the East India Company flourished a very long time ago, in a very different world, its growth, longevity and demise have lessons for those who run today’s state companies and debate their future, lessons about the benefits of linking a company’s interests to a nation’s and the dangers of doing so.

The gifts of government

One of the benefits the Company derived from its relations with the state was limited liability. Before the rise of state-backed companies, businesses had imposed unlimited liability on their investors. If things went wrong, creditors could come after them for everything they possessed, down to their cufflinks, and have them imprisoned if they failed to pay. Some firms had already been granted limited liability, and the Company’s officers persuaded Queen Elizabeth that it should be given this handy status too.
A second benefit of state backing was monopoly. In the 17th century, round-the-world voyages were rather like space missions today. They involved huge upfront costs and huge risks. Monopoly provided at least a modicum of security. The third benefit was military might. The Company’s Dutch and Portuguese competitors could all call on the power of their respective navies. The English needed to do likewise in order to unlock investors’ purses.

Still, getting into bed with the government was risky for the Company. It meant getting close to courtiers who wanted to extract revenue from it and exposing itself to politicians who wanted to rewrite its charter. The Whig revolutionaries who deposed James II in 1688 briefly promoted a competing outfit that the Company first fought and eventually absorbed. Rival merchants lobbied courtiers to undermine its monopoly. But for the most part it dealt with these political problems brilliantly. Indeed its most valuable skill—its “core competence” in the phrase beloved of management theorists—was less its ability to arrange long-distance voyages to India and beyond than its ability to manage the politicians back home.

The Company created a powerful East India lobby in Parliament, a caucus of MPs who had either directly or indirectly profited from its business and who constituted, in Edmund Burke’s opinion, one of the most united and formidable forces in British politics. It also made regular gifts to the Court: “All who could help or hurt at Court,” wrote Lord Macaulay, “ministers, mistresses, priests, were kept in good humour by presents of shawls and silks, birds’ nests and attar of roses, bulses of diamonds and bags of guineas.” It also made timely gifts to the Treasury whenever the state faced bankruptcy. In short, it acted as what George Dempster, a stockholder, called a “great money engine of state”.

The Company was just as adept at playing politics abroad. It distributed bribes liberally: the merchants offered to provide an English virgin for the Sultan of Achin’s harem, for example, before James I intervened. And where it could not bribe it bullied, using soldiers paid for by Indian taxes to duff up recalcitrant rulers. Yet it recognised that its most powerful bargaining chip, both home and abroad, was its ability to provide temporarily embarrassed rulers with the money they needed to pay their bills. In an era when governments lacked the resources of the modern tax-and-spend state, the state-backed company was a backstop against bankruptcy.

State-backed monopolies are apt to run to fat and lose their animal spirits. The Company was a model of economy and austerity that modern managers would do well to emulate. For the first 20 years of its life it operated out of the home of its governor, Sir Thomas Smythe. Even when it had become the world’s greatest commercial operation it remained remarkably lean. It ruled millions of people from a tiny headquarters, staffed by 159 in 1785 and 241 in 1813. Its managers reiterated the importance of frugality, economy and simplicity with a metronomic frequency, and imposed periodic bouts of austerity: in 1816, for example, they turned Saturday from a half to a full working day and abolished the staff’s annual turtle feast.

The Company’s success in preserving its animal spirits owed more to necessity than to cunning. In a world in which letters could take two years to travel to and fro and in which the minions knew infinitely more about what was going on than did their masters, efforts at micromanagement were largely futile.

Adam Smith denounced the Company as a bloodstained monopoly: “burdensome”, “useless” and responsible for grotesque massacres in BengalThe Company improvised a version of what Tom Peters, a management guru, has dubbed “tight-loose management”. It forced its employees to post a large bond in case they went off the rails, and bombarded them with detailed instructions about things like the precise stiffness of packaging. But it also leavened control with freedom. Employees were allowed not only to choose how to fulfil their orders, but also to trade on their own account. This ensured that the Company was not one but two organisations: a hierarchy with its centre of gravity in London and a franchise of independent entrepreneurs with innumerable centres of gravity scattered across the east. Many Company men did extremely well out of this “tight-loose” arrangement, turning themselves into nabobs, as the new rich of the era were called, and scattering McMansions across rural England.

Money and meritocracy

The Company repaid the state not just in taxes and tariffs, but also in ideas. It was one of the 18th and 19th centuries’ great innovators in the art of governing—more innovative by some way than the British government, not to mention its continental rivals, and outgunned only by the former colonies of America. The Company pioneered the art of government by writing and government by record, to paraphrase Burke. Its dispatches to and from India for the 15 years after 1814 fill 12,414 leather-bound volumes. It created Britain’s largest cadre of civil servants, a term it invented.

State-backed enterprises risk getting stuffed with powerful politicians’ half-witted nephews. The Company not only avoided this but also, in an age when power and money were both largely inherited, it pioneered appointment by merit. It offered positions to all-comers on the basis of exam performance. It recruited some of the country’s leading intellectuals, such as Edward Strachey, Thomas Love Peacock and both James and John Stuart Mill—the latter starting, at the age of 17, in the department that corresponded with the central administration in India, and rising, as his father had, to head it, on the eve of the Company’s extinction.

The Company also established a feeder college—Haileybury—so that it could recruit bright schoolboys and train them to flourish in, and run, India. These high-minded civil servants both prolonged the Company’s life when Victorian opinion was turning ever more strongly against it and also provided a model for the Indian and domestic civil service.

The Company liked to think of itself as having the best of both private and public worlds—the excitement and rewards of commercial life, on the one hand, and the dignity and security of an arm of the state on the other. But the best of both worlds can easily turn into the worst.

The perils of imperialisation

In the end, it was not rapacious politicians who killed the Company, but the greed and power of its managers and shareholders. In 1757 Sir Robert Clive won the battle of Plassey and delivered the government of Bengal to the Company. This produced a guaranteed income from Bengal’s taxpayers, but it also dragged the Company ever deeper into the business of government. The Company continued to flourish as a commercial enterprise in China and the Far East. But its overall character was increasingly determined by its administrative obligations in India. Revenue replaced commerce as the Company’s first concern. Tax rolls replaced business ledgers. Arsenals replaced warehouses. C.N. Parkinson summarised how far it had strayed, by 1800, from its commercial purpose: “How was the East India Company controlled? By the government. What was its object? To collect taxes. How was its object attained? By means of a standing army. What were its employees? Soldiers, mostly; the rest, Civil Servants.”


 Sir Robert Clive with wife, daughter and local help
The Company’s growing involvement in politics infuriated its mighty army of critics still further. How could it justify having a monopoly of trade as well as the right to tax the citizens of India? And how could a commercial organisation justify ruling 90m Indians, controlling 70m acres (243,000 square kilometres) of land, issuing its own coins, complete with the Company crest, and supporting an army of 200,000 men, all of which the East India Company did by 1800? Adam Smith denounced the Company as a bloodstained monopoly: “burdensome”, “useless” and responsible for grotesque massacres in Bengal. Anti-Company opinion hardened further in 1770 when a famine wiped out a third of the population of Bengal, reducing local productivity, depressing the Company’s business and eventually forcing it to go cap in hand to the British government to avoid bankruptcy.

The government subjected the Company to ever-tighter supervision, partly because it resented bailing it out, partly because it was troubled by the argument that a company had no business in running a continent. Supervision inexorably led to regulation and regulation to nationalisation (or imperialisation). In 1784 the government established a board to direct the Company’s directors. In 1813 it removed its monopoly of trade with India. In 1833 it removed its monopoly of trade with China and banned it from trading in India entirely. In 1858, the year after the Indian mutiny vindicated the Company’s critics, the government took over all administrative duties in India. The Company’s headquarters in London, East India House, was demolished in 1862. It paid its last dividend in 1873 and was finally put out of its misery in 1874. Thus an organisation that had been given life by the state was eventually extinguished by it.

A dangerous connection

Ever since its ignominious collapse the Company has been treated as an historical curiosity—an “anomaly without a parallel in the history of the world”, as one commentator put it in 1858, a push-me pull-you the like of which the world would never see again. But these days similarly strange creatures are popping up everywhere. The East India Company is being transformed from an historical curiosity into a highly relevant case study.

The Company’s history shows that liberals may be far too pessimistic (if that is the right word) about the ability of state monopolies to remain healthy. The Company lasted for far longer than most private companies precisely because it had two patrons to choose from—prospering from trade in good times and turning to the government for help in bad ones. It also showed that it is quite possible to rely on the government for support while at the same time remaining relatively lean and inventive.

But the Company’s history also shows that mercantilists may be far too optimistic about state companies’ ability to avoid being corrupted by politics. The merchants who ran the East India Company repeatedly emphasised that they had no intention of ruling India. They were men of business who only dabbled in politics out of necessity. Nevertheless, as rival state companies tried to muscle in on their business and local princelings turned out to be either incompetent or recalcitrant, they ended up taking huge swathes of the emerging world under their direct control, all in the name of commerce.

The Chinese state-owned companies that are causing such a stir everywhere from the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (where they account for some of the biggest recent flotations) to the dodgiest parts of Sudan (where they are some of the few business organisations brave enough to tread) are no different from their East Indian forebears. They say that they are only in business for the sake of business. They dismiss their political connections as a mere bagatelle. The history of the East India Company suggests that it won’t work out that way.*****
2856  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: December 20, 2011, 09:36:39 AM
Yes.  I posted IT in health care is not ready for prime time but it is being shoved upon us.

There is a whole industry just drooling to get/stay in on it.

Yet this is not just Obamacare stuff.  Gingrich and other Republicans have also been pushing this for a long time.

Government cannot even get their own systems to work well.

Make no mistake about it.  Health care is driven by the money - the constant fight between payers and the providers and the developers of drugs and technology and associated research.

Those who have a vested stake in making the money off the evolution of it all talk about how *exciting* this all is.

Otherwise it is all very much a mess indeed.

2857  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Economist China and "Soft Power" Sun Tzu on: December 19, 2011, 01:49:31 PM
China abroad
Sun Tzu and the art of soft power
China is using a new tool to boost its influence abroad. Is it the right one?
Dec 17th 2011 | Beijing, Guangrao and Huimin | from the print edition

IN HUIMIN COUNTY in the Yellow River delta, a push by China to build up the nation’s global allure has fired the enthusiasm of local officials. Young men and women dressed in ancient military costumes goosestep across a rain-soaked open-air stage. Their performance is in homage to the 6th-century-BC strategist, Sun Tzu, author of pithy aphorisms beloved of management gurus worldwide. Local cadres sitting on plastic chairs stoically endure the sodden spectacle.

Huimin county regards itself as the birthplace of Sun Tzu and thus the fountainhead of an ancient wisdom which, officials believe, can help persuade the world of China’s attractiveness. The damp display marks Sun Tzu’s supposed birthday. Organisers try to whip up enthusiasm with fireworks and a massive digital screen flashing images of the bearded sage and his one slim work, the “Art of War”, a 6,000-word booklet. Under an awning, journalists from the Communist Party’s newspaper, the People’s Daily, feed live video of the event onto their website. The world gets to see it, even if most locals have stayed at home.

At a local hotel, a Sun Tzu symposium is held. Colonel Liu Chunzhi of China’s National Defence University (also a leader of the China Research Society of Sun Tzu’s Art of War) told this year’s gathering that Sun Tzu was part of “the riches of the people of the world”. Promotion of his work, he said, was “an important step toward the strengthening of China’s soft power”. Sun Tzu may have written about stratagems for warfare, but Huimin’s assembled scholars prefer to tout him as a peacenik. Their evidence is one of the sage’s best-known insights: “The skilful leader subdues the enemy’s troops without any fighting.” What better proof, say his fans in China, that the country has always loved peace?

Chinese leaders, determined to persuade America that they mean no harm, have recruited Sun Tzu to their cause. In 2006 President Hu Jintao gave President George Bush silk copies of the “Art of War” in English and Chinese (not, it seemed, as a way of suggesting better ways of fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but of hinting that the wars need not have been fought in the first place). Jia Qinglin, the fourth-ranking member of the party’s supreme body, the Politburo Standing Committee, said in 2009 that Sun Tzu should be used to promote “lasting peace and common prosperity”. In July this year, Beijing’s Renmin University presented an “Art of War” to Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of America’s joint chiefs of staff, during a visit to the capital.

China has long been proud of Sun Tzu. Mao Zedong was a great fan, even sending aides into enemy territory during the civil war to find a copy of the “Art of War”. But it is only relatively recently that the party has seized upon the notion of building up soft power, a term coined 20 years ago by an American, Joseph Nye of Harvard University, a former chairman of America’s National Intelligence Council and senior Pentagon official, to describe “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments”. President Hu’s use of it in 2007 signalled a shift in party thinking. Throughout the 1990s and into this century, China had been trumpeting Deng Xiaoping’s slogan of “economic construction as the core”. Over the past decade building soft power has emerged as a new party priority.

Mr Nye himself drew a link between soft power and Sun Tzu in a 2008 book, “The Powers to Lead”. Sun Tzu, he said, had concluded that “the highest excellence is never having to fight because the commencement of battle signifies a political failure”. To be a “smart” warrior, said Mr Nye, one had to understand “the soft power of attraction as well as the hard power of coercion”.

Mr Hu may have been slow to adopt Mr Nye’s term openly, but soon after he took office in 2002 he began trying to make China a more attractive brand. In June 2003 a small group of senior propaganda officials and foreign-policy experts met in Beijing for the first time to discuss the importance of soft power. Later that year officials began touting a new term, “peaceful rise”, to describe China’s development. Their message was that China would be an exception to the pattern of history whereby rising big powers conflict with established ones. Within months of the slogan’s launch, officials decided to amend it. Even the word “rise”, they worried, sounded too menacing. The term was changed to “peaceful development”. Mr Hu also adopted the word “harmonious”, sprinkling speeches with references to China’s pursuit of a “harmonious world” and a “harmonious society”.


The results have been mixed. With rich countries on the skids, China’s economic model is looking good. Development driven by the state as well as the market seems to be delivering dividends, and China’s success has helped popularise the idea that state-owned companies should have a large role in economies. Businesspeople around the world admire the efficiency of both the public and private sector in China. Chinese investment in African countries is giving the continent a welcome boost. Yet the economic model is inseparable from the political model; and, as the Arab spring has shown, authoritarianism has little appeal in the West or anywhere else. China’s hard power, in terms of cash, is certainly increasing; but its careless use of that power has not attracted admiration. Its truculent behaviour at the Copenhagen climate-change conference in 2009, its quarrels with Japan over fishing rights in 2010 and its more assertive behaviour recently in the South China Sea have created deep unease about the nature of its evolving power, not least among neighbours that once saw China’s rise as largely benign. Such concerns have been compounded by its persistent efforts internally to suppress dissent, control the internet and stifle the growth of civil society.

This is not how the party sees it. After a meeting in October this year, the party’s Central Committee declared that the soft-power drive had made “conspicuous gains”. But it said further efforts were urgently needed. Many Chinese would agree. The word “harmonise” is now widely used ironically by ordinary Chinese to mean suppressing dissent. Abroad, officials have been trying to win over Western audiences by pouring billions of dollars into the creation of global media giants to rival the soft power of brands such as CNN and the New York Times. A provincial propaganda official complained in January that America, with only 5% of the world’s population, “controlled” about 75% of its television programmes. “Combined with the influence of brands and products such as Hollywood, Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonald’s, jeans and Coca-Cola, American culture has permeated almost the entire world,” he wrote.

China is hamstrung by a contemporary culture that has little global appeal. Its music has few fans abroad; indeed, China’s own youth tend to prefer musicians from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and America. Its political ideology has few adherents: Mao Zedong and his little red book no longer enjoy the cachet they did in Western counterculture during the 1960s. The goosestep of the Sun Tzu soldiers in Huimin county notwithstanding, officials are now well aware that to market China abroad they must avoid references to authoritarianism. The party and its ideology were barely hinted at in the pageantry of the opening ceremony of the Olympic games in Beijing in 2008. Since the present is a hard sell, China is having to lean heavily on the distant past.

The party has not bought into Mr Nye’s view that soft power springs largely from individuals, the private sector and civil society. So the government has taken the lead in promoting ancient cultural icons whom it thinks might have global appeal. Even here it has limited options. Buddhism, which is anyway a foreign import, has been cornered by the Dalai Lama. Both it and Taoism, a native religion, sit uncomfortably with an atheistic party doctrine. This leaves only a handful of figures to choose from.

At the forefront is Confucius. Few Westerners can quote a saying of Confucius. But most at least regard him as a bearded, wise dispenser of aphorisms, far more profound than America’s superficial consumerism. The party is promoting him as a kind of Father Christmas without the undignified jolliness; a sage whose role in the development of centuries of Chinese authoritarianism the party glosses over in favour of his philosophy’s pleasant-sounding mantras: benevolence, righteousness and (of importance to Mr Hu) harmony. So it was that China used Confucius’s name to brand the language-training institutes it began setting up abroad in 2004. There are now more than 300 Confucius Institutes worldwide, about a quarter of them in America.

But Confucius is problematic. Mao and his colleagues regarded Confucius’s philosophy as the ideological glue of the feudal system they destroyed; and so attempts to promote him are vulnerable to the growing split in the Communist Party. In January, with great fanfare, the National History Museum unveiled a bronze statue of him standing 9.5 metres (31 feet) high in front of its entrance by Tiananmen Square. Three months later the statue was quietly removed. The sage’s appearance so close to the most hallowed ground of Chinese communism had outraged hardliners. They saw it as an affront to Mao, whose giant portrait hung diagonally opposite.

Sun Tzu is not so tainted. His is the only big name among China’s ancient thinkers to have survived the communist era with barely a scratch. In the 1970s he was held up as an exemplar in Mao’s struggles against leaders he disliked. The study of Sun Tzu, said a typical tract published in 1975, offered useful guidance for “criticism of the rightist opportunist military line” and the “reactionary views of the Confucianists”. The party still keeps Confucius at the forefront of its soft-power drive, but Sun Tzu is making headway.

That’s partly because the West’s enthusiasm for Sun Tzu makes him an easy sell. The “Art of War” is widely used by after-dinner speakers short of ideas. Take, for example (from the 1910 translation by Lionel Giles, the first authoritative one in English): “The best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good”; “all warfare is based on deception”; and “it is the business of the general to be still and inscrutable, to be upright and impartial”. Sun Tzu beat the Christmas-cracker industry by two –and-a-half millennia.


 .In the West Sun Tzu’s advice has been adapted for almost every aspect of human interaction from the boardroom to the bedroom. The publishing industry feeds on Sun Tzu spin-offs, churning out motivational works such as “Sun Tzu For Success: How to Use the Art of War to Master Challenges and Accomplish the Important Goals in Your Life” (by Gerald Michaelson and Steven Michaelson, 2003), management advice such as “Sun Tzu for Women: The Art of War for Winning in Business” (Becky Sheetz-Runkle, 2011) and sporting tips such as “Golf and the Art of War: How the Timeless Strategies of Sun Tzu Can Transform Your Game” (Don Wade, 2006). Amazon offers 1,500 titles in paperback alone. Paris Hilton, an American celebrity and author of an aphorism of her own: “Dress cute wherever you go, life is too short to blend in”, has been seen dipping into him (see picture).

The sage’s popularity in the West still owes more to Hollywood than China’s own effortsRather more seriously, in his recent book, “On China”, Henry Kissinger revealed how impressed he was by the ancient strategic wisdom Chinese officials seemed to draw upon when he visited the country in the 1970s as America’s national security adviser. Mao, he noted, “owed more to Sun Tzu than to Lenin” in his pursuit of foreign policy. To some historians Mao was a dangerously erratic despot. To Mr Kissinger, he was “enough of a Sun Tzu disciple to pursue seemingly contradictory strategies simultaneously”. Whereas Westerners prized heroism displayed when forces clashed, “the Chinese ideal stressed subtlety, indirection and the patient accumulation of relative advantage”, Mr Kissinger enthused in a chapter on “Chinese Realpolitik and Sun Tzu’s Art of War”. Praise indeed, from the West’s pre-eminent practitioner of Realpolitik, whose mastery of the art of ideology-free diplomacy enabled President Nixon’s visit to China in 1972.

Yet a closer look reveals Sun Tzu’s flaws as a tool of soft power. Chinese attempts to remould him as a man of peace stumble over the fact that his book is a guide to winning wars, avidly studied by America’s armed forces as it was by Mao. Sam Crane of Williams College in Massachusetts says that during the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq he delighted in telling students attending his Sun Tzu classes (some of whom were preparing to join the army) that the “Art of War” advised that prisoners be treated kindly. But, he says, “I think the thing that makes [the book] universal in a grim way is war and competition. War is not a Western construct: the Chinese have been really good at war for a long time.”

American strategists often read the “Art of War” to understand China not as an alluring and persuasive wielder of soft power, but as a potential enemy. A psychological operations officer in America’s Army Central Command, Major Richard Davenport, argued in the Armed Forces Journal in 2009 that China was making use of Sun Tzu’s advice to wage cyber warfare against America. The incriminating quotation was “Supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy’s strategy”.

The sage’s popularity in the West still owes more to Hollywood, source of much American soft power, than China’s own efforts. John Minford, whose translation was published in 2002, says that after Gordon Gekko, a villainous corporate raider played by Michael Douglas in the film “Wall Street”, quoted a line from Sun Tzu (“Every battle is won before it’s ever fought”), the book acquired a “mystique” among students of entrepreneurship.

Professor Minford says he is mystified by this. “I had to struggle with the book at the coal face, with the actual Chinese, and it’s a very peculiar and particularly unpleasant little book which is extremely disorganised, made up of a series of probably very corrupt bits of text, which is very repetitive and has extremely little to say.” He calls the work (whose authorship is even disputed) “basically a little fascist handbook on how to use plausible ideas in order to totally destroy your fellow man”.

Some Chinese say openly that using ancient culture to promote soft power is a bad idea. Pang Zhongying of Renmin University says it does not help the country boost its standing abroad. Instead, says Mr Pang, a former diplomat, it highlights what he calls “a poverty of thought” in China today. “There is no Chinese model, [so] people look back to Confucius and look back to Sun Tzu.” Mr Pang argues that democracy is the best source of soft power. President Hu gives short shrift to that notion.

As Mr Nye sees it, soft power stands a better chance of success when a country’s culture includes “universal values” and its policies “promoted interests that others share”. But China’s soft-power push has coincided with an increasingly strong rejection by Chinese leaders of the very notion of universal values. Among China’s leaders, the prime minister, Wen Jiabao, has come closest to supporting the universalists’ view, but his is a lone voice.

At least in Huimin, Mr Wen appears to enjoy some support. The title last year of the county’s annual Sun Tzu symposium was “Universal values in Sun Tzu’s Art of War and [the work’s] use in non-military realms”. But local officials are more preoccupied with revving up the economy of Huimin, whose dreary main street enjoys a burst of colour from the frontage of a 24-hour McDonald’s. Sun Tzu is seen as a potential new engine of growth; a draw for tourists to the agricultural backwater. In 2003, at a cost of 65m yuan ($7.9m), the county opened Sun Tzu Art of War City, a vast complex of mock-imperial buildings which hosted the rain-soaked birthday celebration. Huimin’s main urban district has been renamed Sun Wu (as Sun Tzu is also called).

But the vast empty car park outside the Art of War City and its near-deserted courtyards suggest the town is struggling. It is not being helped by fierce competition with another county 100km (60 miles) away, Guangrao, which in recent years has been laying a rival claim as Sun Tzu’s birthplace. In June the county, whose tyre, petrochemical and paper-making industries have made it much richer than Huimin, held a foundation-stone ceremony for its own Sun Tzu theme park. Chinese media say this is due to open in 2013 and will cost a prodigious 1.6 billion yuan ($250m).

But Guangrao too will have a hard time turning Sun Tzu into a soft-power icon. In April about 700km (430 miles) to the south, Disney broke ground in Shanghai at the site of an amusement park that it says will feature the world’s largest Disney castle. It is due to cost 24 billion yuan and open in five years. Xinhua, a government news agency, published a commentary on its website calling such theme parks “a big platform for soft-power competition between nations”. One widely reposted blog put it more bleakly. American soft power, it said, had “conquered 5,000 years of magnificent Chinese civilisation”.

Sun Tzu had an aphorism to suit China’s predicament: “Know the enemy, know yourself and victory is never in doubt, not in a hundred battles”. If China wants to influence the world, it needs to think hard about the values it promotes at home.

from the print edition | Christ
2858  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / S.Korea exams on: December 18, 2011, 03:11:11 PM
Exams in South Korea
The one-shot society
The system that has helped South Korea prosper is beginning to break down
Dec 17th 2011 | SEOUL | from the print edition

ON NOVEMBER 10th South Korea went silent. Aircraft were grounded. Offices opened late. Commuters stayed off the roads. The police stood by to deal with emergencies among the students who were taking their university entrance exams that day.

Every year the country comes to a halt on the day of the exams, for it is the most important day in most South Koreans’ lives. The single set of multiple-choice tests that students take that day determines their future. Those who score well can enter one of Korea’s best universities, which has traditionally guaranteed them a job-for-life as a high-flying bureaucrat or desk warrior at a chaebol (conglomerate). Those who score poorly are doomed to attend a lesser university, or no university at all. They will then have to join a less prestigious firm and, since switching employers is frowned upon, may be stuck there for the rest of their lives. Ticking a few wrong boxes, then, may mean that they are permanently locked out of the upper tier of Korean society.

Making so much depend on an exam has several advantages for Korea. It is efficient: a single set of tests identifies intelligent and diligent teenagers, and launches them into society’s fast stream. It is meritocratic: poor but clever Koreans can rise to the top by studying very, very hard. The exam’s importance prompts children to pay attention in class and parents to hound them about their homework; and that, in turn, ensures that Korea’s educational results are the envy of the world. The country is pretty much the leading nation in the scoring system run by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In 2009 it came fourth after Shanghai, Singapore and Hong Kong, but those are cities rather than full-sized countries.

Korea’s well-educated, hard-working population has powered its economic miracle. The country has risen from barefoot to broadband since 1960, and last year, despite the global slowdown, its economy grew by 6.2%. In the age of the knowledge economy, education is economic destiny. So the system has had far-reaching and beneficial consequences.

Yet it also has huge costs. For a start, high school is hell. Two months before the day of his exams Kim Min-sung, a typical student, was monosyllabic and shy. All the joy seemed to have been squeezed out of him, to make room for facts. His classes lasted from 7am until 4pm, after which he headed straight for the library until midnight. He studied seven days a week. “You get used to it,” he mumbled.

His parents have spent much of Min-sung’s life worrying about his education. His father, a teacher, taught him how to manage his time: to draw up a plan and stick to it, so as to complete as much revision as possible without collapsing exhausted on the desk. His mother kept him fuelled with “delicious food” and urged him to “study more, but not too much”.

Min-sung says he doesn’t particularly want to go to university, but he feels “social pressure” to do so. He dreams of getting a job as an agent for sports stars, which would not obviously require a university degree. But he reluctantly accepts that in Korea, “You can’t get [any] job without a degree.”

Min-sung’s happiest time was playing football with his friends during the lunch hour. Every child in his school dashes to the cafeteria when the bell goes and gulps down the noodles like a wolf in a hurry. The quicker they eat, the more precious minutes of freedom each day will contain.

A poll by CLSA, a stockbroker, found that 100% of Korean parents want their children to go to university. Such expectations can be stressful. In one survey a fifth of Korean middle and high school students said they felt tempted to commit suicide. In 2009 a tragic 202 actually did so. The suicide rate among young Koreans is high: 15 per 100,000 15-24-year-olds, compared with ten Americans, seven Chinese and five Britons. Min-sung’s older sister, Kim Jieun, who took the exams a few years ago, recalls: “I thought of emigrating, I hated the education system so much.”

As more and more students cram into universities, the returns to higher education are falling. Because all Korean parents want their children to go to university, most do. An incredible 63% of Koreans aged 25-34 are college graduates—the highest rate in the OECD. Since 1995 there has been a staggering 30 percentage-point increase in the proportion of Koreans who enter university to pursue academic degrees, to 71% in 2009.

This sounds great, but it is unlikely that such a high proportion of young Koreans will actually benefit from chasing an academic degree, as opposed to a vocational qualification. A survey in August found that, four months after leaving university, 40% of graduates had not yet found jobs.

Unemployment represents a poor return on what for most families is a huge financial sacrifice. Not only is college itself expensive; so is getting in. Parents will do anything to help their children pass the college entrance exam. Many send them to private crammers, known as hagwon, after school. Families in Seoul spend a whopping 16% of their income on private tuition.

Seoul children

Korea’s rigid social model aggravates the nation’s extreme demographic problems. Korean women have stopped having anywhere near enough babies to provide the country with the workforce it will need in the future.

Since Korean women started entering the labour force in large numbers, the opportunity costs of having children have risen sharply. The workplace makes few allowances for women who want to take a career break. If a woman drops off the career track for a couple of years, Korean firms are far less likely than Western ones to welcome her back. And if a firm does take back a working mother, she will face a stark choice: drop off the fast track or work long and inflexible hours.

Flexitime and working from home are frowned on. This makes it staggeringly hard to combine work and child care, especially since Korean mothers are expected to bear most of the responsibility for pushing their children to excel academically.

The direct costs of raising children who can pass that all-important exam are also hefty. Sending one child to a $1,000-a-month hagwon is hard enough. Paying for three is murder. Parents engage in an educational arms race. Those with only one child can afford higher fees, so they bid up the price of the best hagwon. This gives other parents yet another incentive to have fewer children.

Since 1960 the fertility rate in Korea has fallen faster than nearly anywhere on earth, from six children per woman to 1.15 in 2009. That is a recipe for demographic collapse. If each Korean woman has only one baby, each generation will be half as large as the one that came before. Korea will age and shrink into global irrelevance.

Small wonder the government is worried. President Lee Myung-bak talks of the need to create a “fair society”. That means, among other things, changing attitudes to educational qualifications. He says he wants employers to start judging potential employees by criteria other than their alma mater. In September he promised that the government would start hiring more non-graduates. “Merit should count more than academic background,” he said.

The forces for change

The president is also urging Korean firms to recruit people with a wider range of experiences. Some have agreed to do so. In September, for example, Daewoo Shipbuilding said it would start hiring high-school graduates and set up an institution to train them. But the managers who run big Korean companies are mostly from the generation in which academic background was everything, so they may be reluctant to change.

The government is trying to reduce the leg-up that private tuition gives to the children of the well-off. Since 2008 local authorities have been allowed to limit hagwon hours and fees. Freelance snoops, known as hagparazzi, visit hagwon with hidden cameras to catch them charging too much or breaking a local curfew. The hagparazzi are rewarded with a share of any fines imposed on errant educational establishments. Yet still the hagwon proliferate. By the government’s count, there are nearly 100,000.

The other force for change is Korea’s young people. Many are questioning whether the old rules about how to live one’s life will make them happy. Kang Jeong-im, a musician, puts it bluntly: “I think it’s difficult to live the way you want to in South Korea.” High school was the worst, she recalls: “We were like memorising machines. Almost every day, I’d fall asleep at my desk. The teacher would shout at me or throw chalk.”

Ms Kang made her parents proud by getting into Yonsei, one of Korea’s leading universities. But once there, she rebelled. She hung out with radicals and read Marx and Foucault. She went on protest marches, waving a placard, inhaling tear gas and almost getting herself arrested. “I kinda enjoyed it,” she says, “I felt I was doing something really important.”

She learned to play the guitar. She wrote a thesis on female Korean rock musicians that involved a lot of “field studies”: ie, going to concerts and talking to cool people. She even interviewed the singer of 3rd Line Butterfly, a group she loved.

She formed a band with a male friend. They played some gigs in small venues, but eventually he took a full-time job at a news agency and no longer had time for rocking. So Ms Kang started a solo career, writing songs and performing them herself, using the stage name “Flowing”. She is working on an album, she says, and performing in clubs. Her parents are not exactly thrilled; they want her to find a respectable job and get married. Their friends and relatives ask: “What is your daughter doing?” and “Why do you let her live like this?”

Ms Kang cannot live on what she makes as a musician, so she takes temporary jobs. She is one of many. Among the young, the proportion of jobs that are part-time has exploded from 8% in 2000 to 23% in 2010; the proportion of workers under 25 on temporary contracts has leapt from zero to 28%. This is partly because cash-strapped companies are backing away from the old tradition of lifetime employment, but also because many young people do not want to be chained to the same desk for 30 years.

According to TNS, a market-research firm, Koreans are markedly more fed up with the companies they work for than people in other countries. Only half would recommend them as a good place to work, compared to three-quarters of TNS’s global sample. Only 48% think they receive suitable recognition, as individuals, for their work, compared with 68% of workers in supposedly collectivist China. Only Japanese workers are more disgruntled.

Despite these gripes, 79% of Korean workers expect still to be working for the same employer in a year’s time. TNS speculates that this attitude reflects the difficulty of switching employers rather than genuine loyalty; it talks of “captive” employees.

Such averages mask wide variation, of course. Some highflying Korean salarymen feel intensely loyal to their employers and are prepared to slave long hours to help them conquer new markets. But this inner circle is quite small: the chaebol employ only 10% of the workforce. And the rigid way that chaebol tend to seek talent—recruiting only from prestigious universities and promoting only from within—means that, as well as failing to get the best out of Korean women, they miss clever people who are not much good at exams and late developers whose talents blossom in their 20s or 30s. They also shunt older people into retirement when they still have much to offer. (The chaebol tend to promote by seniority, which sounds good for older employees but isn’t. There are only a few jobs at the top, so when you reach the age at which you might become a senior manager, you are either promoted or pensioned off.)


 Parents praying for their children’s success in exams


It is still rare for a Korean who is clever enough to reach the top by the conventional route to choose a different one; but it is becoming less so. One fertile source of subversion is the Koreans who have studied overseas. Some 13% of Korean tertiary students study abroad, according to the OECD, a higher proportion than in any other rich country. In recent years, many have come home, not least because the American government, in a fit of self-destructive foolishness, made it much harder after September 11th 2001 for foreign students to work in America after they graduate. A survey by Vivek Wadhwa of Duke University found that most foreign students at American universities feared they would not be able to obtain a work visa. And since the application process is long and humiliating, many do not even bother to try. America’s loss is Korea’s (and India’s, and China’s) gain.

Returnees are typically bright, and less beholden to tradition than their stay-at-home peers. For example, Richard Choi, whose father was a globe-trotting manager for a chaebol, attended a British school in Hong Kong and learned about America’s start-up culture while studying biomedical engineering at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Having returned to Korea, he has devised a business model in which customers receive store credits from merchants for recommending their products to their friends. “Let’s say you think this pie is good,” says Mr Choi, pointing at a chocolate confection your correspondent has just bought. “And you tell your friends about it [via a smartphone app developed by Mr Choi’s company, Spoqa]. And they come to this café and spend money. Then you get store credits.”

If this model will work anywhere, it will work in Seoul, figures Mr Choi. The Korean capital is densely populated and splendidly connected: nearly everyone with spare cash has a smartphone. And if it does not, he can probably get a good job, he thinks. But he has to hurry. Even with his skills, he reckons that no chaebol would hire him once he is over 30.

A few locally educated Koreans are also challenging the system. Charles Pyo, a young internet entrepreneur, borrowed his mother’s credit card when he was 14 and started a business helping people set up websites. His parents did not approve; they thought he should be studying instead. But then they saw all the money coming in, and relented. He made $200,000 in three years.

He then won a place at Yonsei University. He took the exam like anyone else, but what really counted was his interview, in which he argued that he had exceptional talents. Korean universities have traditionally spurned interviews, but the government is now urging them to select many more of their students this way.


 On the ladder to prosperity .
While at university, Mr Pyo teamed up with a former hacker, Kim Hyun-chul. (In his teens, Mr Kim set off cyber-terror alarm bells by infecting hundreds of thousands of computers with a virus that deleted files on his birthday. He was caught, but he was too young to send to prison.) Now a reformed character, he helped Mr Pyo start another company, Wizard Works, that supplies “widgets”—little packets of software that make corporate websites work better—and is about to start selling “cloud computing” apps for smartphones. Still only 25, Mr Pyo has now started yet another company, Rubicon Games, that designs online social games.

Mr Pyo says that what he does is much more fun than being a salaryman. But it is hard for him to recruit good staff. People assume that if you don’t work for a chaebol, it must be because you are not bright enough, he gripes. “They say: ‘Why should I work for you? You’re not Samsung.’”

Mr Choi has the same problem. “Older people look at my business card and say: ‘What’s this?’ Younger people admire the fact that I am doing something no one else is doing. But given the choice of working for me or Samsung, people are naturally inclined to go with a big company.”

Mr Pyo believes that Korea would be a happier place if more people had the courage to strike out on their own. But talented students “care too much about other people’s expectations,” he sighs. “They don’t want to fall behind their friends. They fear that if they do something different they might be viewed as a failure.”

The Land of Miracles must loosen up

The Korean economic boom was built on hard work, benign demography (a bulge of working-age Koreans between 1970 and 1990) and plenty of opportunities to catch up with richer countries. But the world, and Korea, have changed.

Korea is rich, so it can no longer grow fast by copying others. It cannot remain dynamic with an ageing, shrinking workforce. It cannot become creative with a school system that stresses rote learning above thinking. And its people cannot realise their full potential in a society where they get only one shot at doing well in life, and it comes when they are still teenagers. To remain what one writer called “The Land of Miracles”, Korea will have to loosen up, and allow many routes to success.

2859  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: December 18, 2011, 02:53:43 PM
Doug,

I share your being peeved at Gregory.  He is such a partisan hack and frankly a scumbag.

I don't know for the life of me why Republicans keep going onto his show.   Why give him the opportunity and why give him legitimacy at all?  He is not legitimate and his show stinks anyway.  It is no different than propaganda coming out of MSNBC.

Do a lot of independents watch him?

Why are the repubs going on his show?  Who needs his crap?

That said Bachman handled herself well for the five minutes I could stand watching Gregory continuously try and bait her.  It is obvious what he does.
2860  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: December 17, 2011, 12:55:40 PM
"This President chose the worst of all choices, to do nothing!"

One cited reason was it might look like an "act of war".

But, but, but, isn't a drone flying over Iran airspace already an act of war?

2861  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: December 17, 2011, 12:52:18 PM
http://www.chomsky.info/

The wikipedia site alone with all its detailed information and links to other topics would take a day to study.
2862  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: December 17, 2011, 12:50:29 PM
Well I am not sure what to make of his political views but certainly he is extraordinarily accomplished and I respect that.

In case he does come to this board I will try to "bone up" on his views since I really don't know much about him.

From his website an awful lot to digest:


                       




                     
 
 
·  Noam Chomsky. International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest: 1500 to the present.
·  Noam Chomsky. The Columbia Encyclopedia.
·  Noam Chomsky. Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers, 1860-1960.
·  Noam Chomsky. Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology.
·  Noam Chomsky. Major Twentieth Century Writers.
·  Noam Chomsky. MIT Linguistics Program.
·  Noam Chomsky. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
·  Noam Chomsky. Wikipedia.
 
2863  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: December 16, 2011, 02:11:27 PM
"Probably he's taking a big pay cut to serve."

Who cares.  It is still a career move. 

Journalists are getting rich, politicians are getting rich, Federal employees are getting rich, the lobbyists are getting rich.

The beltway is the richest metropolitan area in the country.

Why should regular voters believe any of them?

The OWS should be on Capital Hill, at the White House and in DC in general - not Wall St.

   
2864  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / newsmedia/government fascism on: December 16, 2011, 11:29:06 AM
Anther "journalist" gets hired by the government.  I don't know what to make of the now obvious common revolving door between news people and government work.  It is exactly the same stuff us Wall Street Fed employee work or corporate lobby government relations.  We had Tony Snow go from the media to press secretary, we have Dana Perrino go from press secretary to Fox punditry.  We have senators, governors, comgresspeople getting talk shows and routnine guests on the networks.

We have talk show hosts and other media types going to the WH  giving advice (zakaria).  This is really weird folks.  Do others notice this.  This nation is in civil war.  A propoganda war.  This is a big part of it.   I don't feel more educated or informed.  I feel more manipulated and deceived.  I feel like this is part of what is called the establishment.  It is all about them, their pocketbooks, their agendas.  Do others feel this way?:

****Jim Sciutto is ABC News' Senior Foreign correspondent, based in London. Since moving overseas in 2002, he has reported from more than 30 countries in Europe, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, including twelve assignments in Iraq. He contributes to all ABC News broacasts and platforms, including "World News with Diane Sawyer," "Nightline" and "Good Morning America."

Sciutto won Emmy awards in 2004 and 2005 for best story in a regularly scheduled newscast, covering northern Iraq for "Iraq: Where Things Stand." He was nominated for another Emmy in 2005 for outstanding coverage of a breaking news story for "Crisis in Beslan". He reported from Poland as part of ABC's Dupont Award-winning coverage of the death of Pope John Paul II.

Sciutto was the first television reporter to interview Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah and one of a handful of journalists allowed inside an Iranian nuclear plant in 2005. During the Iraq war, Sciutto was the only reporter embedded with the U.S. Special Forces.

Prior to his assignment overseas, he was based in Washington, reporting primarily from the Pentagon. Sciutto has also anchored "World News Now" and "World News This Morning." Before being assigned to Washington, he served as an ABC News correspondent in Chicago.

Prior to joining ABC News in 1998, Sciutto was Hong Kong correspondent for Asia Business News, an Asia-wide TV network owned by Dow Jones. For ABN, he covered Hong Kong's return to China in 1997, and reported on every country in the region, including assignments to China, Mongolia, Laos, Vietnam, Singapore and South Korea.

Sciutto's first job in television was as moderator and producer of "The Student Press," a weekly public affairs talk show for U.S. and Canadian college students broadcast on PBS.

Sciutto earned a degree in history from Yale University in 1992. He was a Fulbright Fellow in Hong Kong from 1993 to 1994.

In 2002, he was appointed Associate Fellow of Pierson College at Yale. He was also selected as a term member of the Council of Foreign Relations in June 2002.****
2865  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: December 15, 2011, 07:28:07 PM
I think Israel did give back Gaza and Sinai for peace with Egypt.

But a majority Palesitinians don't want a peaceful coexistence.

The fourth solution is a form of the final solution.
Iran finishes their development of nuclear weapons and uses them to get rid of the Jews in "southern Syria" once and for all.


 
2866  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / what about the fourth solution on: December 15, 2011, 06:11:45 PM
I watched the video.

Chomsky conveniently neglects that there is a fourth solution.

I don't listen to him much or know much about him but he is obviously part of this liberal movement that does indeed include many naricisstic Jews who are for the one world government.   And of course "smart government".  He sits there smuggly lecturing anyone who will listen on what is best for all of us.

Anything less is outdated, midevil, stupid, ignorant and on the wrong side of history.

I don't quite get the concept that Jews in Israel are for this big expansion.  They simply want that piece of land the size of NJ.

They are not out conquering the world as he seems to imply.

Perhaps he should switch from Pepsi to Coke.

2867  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: December 15, 2011, 02:16:49 PM
"jebusites, kanaanites, philistines and many other people in Palestine"

Oh and by the way.  None of these ancient peoples as a group have surivived for *thousands* of years!  They don't exist anymore.  So what is this guy talking about they also have a right to the land?

Jews are one of the few groups people who have existed in around 1400 BC to now with an common persistant heritage.  Who else is older?  Egyptians.  Yes Aborigines, I think.

Perhaps some tribes in Africa?  I don't know who else.  There were probably forunners of the Greek city states.  Perhaps one could make a case for Persia or Babylonian forerunners.   Probably early "Chinese" forerunners.

There were no Christains till Jesus as we all know.

Lets see there was no such thing as a Muslim till what 670AD.
2868  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: American History on: December 12, 2011, 03:04:06 PM
"Glenn Beck made this point about TR being a progressive frequently and with great vigor due to Jonah Goldberg's influence. "

I missed that.
I recall the part about Woodrow Wilson who was of course from Princeton.   I guess the same liberal place than as now.
2869  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Will: Perry or Huntsman less risky on: December 12, 2011, 02:09:59 PM
This is the Republicans race "to lose".  I noted that some months back and even the Economist in the last issue echoed those exact same words.   Yet this is depressing from George.
Wow:

****Stop the coronation: Both Gingrich and Romney are too risky

By George Will

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Republicans are more conservative than at any time since their 1980 dismay about another floundering president. They are more ideologically homogenous than ever in 156 years of competing for the presidency. They anticipated choosing between Mitt Romney, a conservative of convenience, and a conviction politician to his right. The choice, however, could be between Romney and the least conservative candidate, Newt Gingrich.

Romney’s main objection to contemporary Washington seems to be that he is not administering it. God has 10 commandments, Woodrow Wilson had 14 points, Heinz had 57 varieties, but Romney’s economic platform has 59 planks — 56 more than necessary if you have low taxes, free trade and fewer regulatory burdens. Still, his conservatism-as-managerialism would be a marked improvement upon today’s bewildered liberalism.

Gingrich, however, embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive. And there is his anti-conservative confidence that he has a comprehensive explanation of, and plan to perfect, everything.

Granted, his grandiose rhetoric celebrating his “transformative” self is entertaining: Recently he compared his revival of his campaign to Sam Walton’s and Ray Kroc’s creations of Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, two of America’s largest private-sector employers. There is almost artistic vulgarity in Gingrich’s unrepented role as a hired larynx for interests profiting from such government follies as ethanol and cheap mortgages. His Olympian sense of exemption from standards and logic allowed him, fresh from pocketing $1.6 million from Freddie Mac (for services as a “historian”), to say, “If you want to put people in jail,” look at “the politicians who profited from” Washington’s environment.

 RECEIVE LIBERTY LOVING COLUMNISTS IN YOUR INBOX … FOR FREE!

  Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
 
 




His temperament — intellectual hubris distilled — makes him blown about by gusts of enthusiasm for intellectual fads, from 1990s futurism to “Lean Six Sigma” today. On Election Eve 1994, he said a disturbed South Carolina mother drowning her children “vividly reminds” Americans “how sick the society is getting, and how much we need to change things. . . . The only way you get change is to vote Republican.” Compare this grotesque opportunism — tarted up as sociology — with his devious recasting of it in a letter to the Nov. 18, 1994, Wall Street Journal (http://bit.ly/vFbjAk). And remember his recent swoon over the theory that “Kenyan, anti-colonial” thinking explains Barack Obama.

Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how. Conservatism, in contrast, is both cause and effect of modesty about understanding society’s complexities, controlling its trajectory and improving upon its spontaneous order. Conservatism inoculates against the hubristic volatility that Gingrich exemplifies and Genesis deplores: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel.”

Obama is running as Harry Truman did in 1948, against Congress, but Republicans need not supply the real key to Truman’s success — Tom Dewey. Confident that Truman was unelectable, Republicans nominated New York’s chilly governor, whose virtues of experience and steadiness were vitiated by one fact: Voters disliked him. Before settling for Romney, conservatives should reconsider two candidates who stumbled early on.

Rick Perry (disclosure: my wife, Mari Will, advises him) has been disappointing in debates. They test nothing pertinent to presidential duties but have become absurdly important. Perry’s political assets remain his Texas record and Southwestern zest for disliking Washington and Wall Street simultaneously and equally.

Jon Huntsman inexplicably chose to debut as the Republican for people who rather dislike Republicans, but his program is the most conservative. He endorses Paul Ryan’s budget and entitlement reforms. (Gingrich denounced Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering.”) Huntsman would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Gingrich’s benefactor). Huntsman would end double taxation on investment by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. (Romney would eliminate them only for people earning less than $200,000, who currently pay just 9.3 percent of them.) Huntsman’s thorough opposition to corporate welfare includes farm subsidies. (Romney has justified them as national security measures — food security, somehow threatened. Gingrich says opponents of ethanol subsidies are “big-city” people hostile to farmers.) Huntsman considers No Child Left Behind, the semi-nationalization of primary and secondary education, “an unmitigated disaster.” (Romney and Gingrich support it. Gingrich has endorsed a national curriculum.) Between Ron Paul’s isolationism and the faintly variant bellicosities of the other six candidates stands Huntsman’s conservative foreign policy, skeptically nuanced about America’s need or ability to control many distant developments.

Romney might not be a Dewey. Gingrich might stop being (as Churchill said of John Foster Dulles) a bull who carries his own china shop around with him. But both are too risky to anoint today.



2870  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Herb and Marion Sandler on: December 12, 2011, 11:58:55 AM
Hats off to Aaron Klein for real journolism exposing the influence of major leftist radical liberal groups and NBC news:

newsroom gets fresh leftist invasion. Network teams up with ‘journalism’ outfit founded by Barack Obama campaigners.
Posted on December 6, 2011 at 9:30 PM EST

 
By Aaron Klein

NBC-owned television stations in cities across the nation just teamed up with a nonprofit “journalism” group funded by a billionaire husband and wife team who not only spent millions campaigning for President Obama but also topped donor lists to groups like ACORN and MoveOn.org.

The nonprofit, ProPublica, will contribute to the news operations of all NBC owned-and-operated stations, including those in such cities as Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia, the network announced Monday.

The NBC affiliates will get early access to investigative reports from ProPublica, which describes itself as an “independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.

Also included in the arrangement are local radio stations owned by Comcast, which purchased NBCUniversal earlier this year

The LA Times reported the arrangement comes as Comcast moves to fulfill its commitment to federal regulators to strengthen local, public-interest programming.

Bill Davis, chief executive of Pasadena-based KPCC-FM, said his radio station and KNBC-TV in Los Angeles will be able to expand the size of their audiences and the reach of their reporting.

“We can get to the kind of investigative and enterprise stories we wouldn’t be able to singularly,” Davis told the LA Times.

NBC stations will be given access to ProPublica’s newsroom to focus their own reporting on similar stories.

“We put the reporting at their fingertips and they can do terrific local stories with it,” said Richard Tofel, general manager for ProPublica.

“We get a greater and wider impact, which is ultimately our mission,” Tofel said of the new arrangement.

Obama campaigners; MoveOn, ACORN funders

On its website, Pro Publica describes itself as championing the values of the “weak” against the “strong.”

States the website: “Our work focuses exclusively on truly important stories, stories with ‘moral force.’ We do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them.”

Controversial Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., a friend of Obama who was embroiled in a national race scandal in 2009, sits on the board of ProPublica.

ProPublica was founded with a $10 million yearly grant from Herbert and Marion Sandler, the former chief executives of the Golden West Financial Corporation, which was one of the nation’s largest mortgage lenders and savings and loans.

Just before the financial crisis, the Sandlers in 2008 sold their business to the Wachovia Corporation for about $26 billion, a deal which valued their personal shares at about $2.4 billion.

The Sandlers are major donors to the Democratic Party and are top funders of ACORN, MoveOn.org, the American Civil Liberties Union and other far-leftist groups like Human Rights Watch.

The billionaire couple donate major sums to the Center for American Progress think tank, which is reportedly highly influential in helping to craft White House policy.

The center is directed by John Podesta, who served as co-chairman of Obama’s 2008 presidential transition team.

In 2008, the Sandlers were behind two controversial California Political Action Committees, Vote Hope and PowerPac.org, which spent about $5 million in pro-Obama ads in that state. The two groups were run by the Sandler’s son-in-law, Steve Phillips, the former president of the San Francisco School Board.

Journalistic integrity called into question

The journalistic integrity of the Sandler-backed ProPublica has been repeatedly called into question.

A report by the Capital Research Center concluded ProPublica “churns out little more than left-wing hit pieces about Sarah Palin and blames the U.S. government for giving out too little foreign aid.”

Slate reporter Jack Shafer raised questions about ProPublica’s ability to provide independent nonpartisan journalism in light of the nature of the Sandler’s political donations, which include “giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic Party campaigns.”

The watchdog website UndueInfluence.com slammed ProPublica’s claim of independence, stating the site is “as independent as a lapdog on a leash with allegiances sworn in advance to left-wing causes.”

AP distributes Soros-funded ‘journalism’

NBC’s deal with ProPublica is not the first time a major news outlet distributed reporting that is funded by questionable, partisan sources.

In 2009, KleinOnline first broke the story, that the Associated Press began delivering to its subscribing 1,500 American newspapers content, it has emerged, penned by groups with financing from philanthropist George Soros.  The AP also distributes ProPublica pieces.

The AP announced in July 2009 it will allow its subscribers to publish free of charge work by four nonprofit groups, the Center for Public Integrity, the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, the Center for Investigative Reporting and ProPublica.

The CPI is funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute.

CPI churns out regular partisan pieces. One widely debunked CPI study from 2008, covered extensively by the AP, claimed it found President Bush and top administration officials had issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq as “part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”

Writing on FrontPageMag, Richard Poe, a writer for the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, concluded CPI and other Soros-funded so-called watchdogs “have a long history of coordination with Soros and his Shadow Party. They are beholden to Soros personally for his financial support. His influence often shows in their choice of targets.”

The AP itself has called the arrangement to distribute pieces from the Soros and Sandler-funded nonprofits an experiment that could be broadened to include other investigative nonprofits and to serve its nonmember clients, which include broadcast and Internet outlets.

“It’s something we’ve talked about for a long time, since part of our mission is to enable our members to share material with each other,” said Sue Cross, a senior vice president at the AP.

She added the development in 2006 of an Internet-based system for members to receive AP material made it easier to do this kind of sharing and to offer new products like the investigative service.

With research by Brenda J. Ellio
2871  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: December 12, 2011, 11:28:46 AM
I saw this poll and this is exactly what I am talking about.

There is no chance this poll is accurate.  This is msm propaganda.

I know numerous Israelis and none are enamored with Obama.
2872  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Jonah Goldberg and TR on: December 12, 2011, 10:38:35 AM
I put this here because Jonah brings up some history points I did not realize.  TR was a Progressive after he was a Republican!
How this guy got his mug on Mt. Rushmore beats the heck out of me.  If I undertand croney capitalism/fascism correctly then that is EXACTLY what TR was all about.  I knew I could not like a man for cackling with laughter joy and glee after shooting a Cuban in the belly running up San Juan Hill.  Now I don't like him for his politics.   Could anyone imagine G Washington gleeful after shooting another man?   The joy of murder? embarassed

http://www.nationalreview.com/author/56454/latest
2873  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: December 12, 2011, 10:32:10 AM
If one were to believe the mainstream American media one would think Israeli's love Brock.   WE have Fareed Zakaria asking putting every Jewish official on the spot asking them if they think his friend and confidante Brock is doing "everything possible" to protect Israel.  Of course they are loathe to tell the truth on American TV.  Zakaria knows this.

Antyhing for the beloved One of the beloved Democrat party it seems.  Contrary to the certainly twisted reports we get in MSM:

****Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

Top government officials laud France, UK, but tell Ynet White House policy with regards to Iranian nuclear program 'hesitant'

Attila Somfalvi Published:  12.11.11, 22:44 / Israel News 
  Senior Israeli officials expressed their disappointment with US President Barack Obama's policy on Iran.

"The administration is still not acting in full force to impose significant sanctions against Tehran," one of the officials told Ynet Sunday night.

On the other hand, officials in Jerusalem lauded French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron. "France and the UK have begun to act determinedly, while Obama's administration has yet to formulate a policy that is sufficiently severe," another official said.****

2874  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: December 12, 2011, 10:04:59 AM
Crafty
well said.
what was he doing in effect apologizing for not being poor?!

if only he could take make the fight like Newt.  He has to be able to do this.

It is the ONLY way to get past the liberal controlled media which is doing all they can to dampen all Republicans and promote their guy.
2875  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Movies on: December 10, 2011, 12:37:24 PM
That is a taste of the power of money - it is everything.  That is one theme of the 99% that is absolutely true and unfair in this world.

I wouldn't mind hearing a Republican at least address this kind of stuff.  I will die waiting.
2876  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Cameron - not rich enough - just take it all. on: December 10, 2011, 12:34:23 PM
Unfortunately it isn't just a matter of truth coming out.   OF course he stole it.  Of course he will lie.   Of course many around him who have made money and have deals will be happy to lie.  If one thinks that people with the technical know how to make a movie like this cannot also make "new" electronic evidence and back date it would be mistaken.  Private investigators will likely be hired if not already and follow the acusers and his lawyers around.  Don't think secretaries at the law firms can't be bought off (as well as the lawyers who would probably rather work for a billionaire rather than a ripped of poor artist) to supply all the info or help things diappear or get swithed.  Supply someone with a key to get in and make a switcheroo with adjusted evidence.   Even pay off copyright people.    Think they won't get into your house or place of work.  Think they can't bribe anyone around you to give them the inside info as to what you claim, what you have in evidence?  Where it is, copies, etc.

Eavesdropping?  The entertainment industry which cries foul everytime something of theirs is downloaded somewhere in the world does though they rip people off all day long.  Politicians they can't or won't help you.  They all get cuts donations, deals with the entertainers or get to meet with celebrities or have them sing at their fundraiser for free (promotional advertising for them).

It is nothing for them to hire full time people to go out and do these things.  Even neighbors will do it to have a new fence put up or a roof fixed.
 


 *****Home James Cameron Sued by Sci Fi Geek -- You Stole 'Avatar' from Me!!!
Celebrity Justice12/8/2011 5:55 PM PST BY TMZ STAFF.James Cameron Sued By Sci Fi Geek --
You Stole 'Avatar' From Me!!!

James Cameron is an idea stealing thief ... who ripped the story for "Avatar" from a science fiction nerd who once worked with Cameron's production company ... this according to a new lawsuit.

Cameron is being sued by a guy named Eric Ryder -- who claims back in 1997, he came up with a movie called "KRZ 2068" -- an "environmentally themed 3-D epic about a corporation's colonization and plundering of a distant moon's lush and wondrous natural setting."

Ryder claims the movie also involved "self-contained robotic exterior suits which house a single human operator" ... just like in "Avatar."

According to the suit, filed in L.A. County Superior Court, Ryder claims his reps pitched the movie idea to Cameron's production company back in 1999 ... and it was so well received, they had multiple serious meetings with high ranking execs about the development of the project.

But Ryder claims in 2002, the company officially shut down the project -- telling him, "No one would go see an environmentally themed feature length science fiction movie."

So when "Avatar" hit theaters in 2009 ... and made bazillions ... Ryder was furious.

In his suit, Ryder alleges he complained to Cameron's people in 2009 -- but when they finally got back to him earlier this year, they told him to kick rocks, claiming J.C. had written the story before 1999.

Ryder says Cameron's people are lying -- claiming there are way too many similarities between the two projects -- including Ryder's idea for one of the characters to be played by Sigourney Weaver.

Ryder is suing for unspecified damages -- probably a bloody fortune.

Attempts to reach Cameron's people were unsuccessful.


1:30 PM PT: Reps for Fox and James Cameron just released a statement, claiming "the suit is baseless and we will vigorously defend our position."*****

2877  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Newt Gingrich on: December 10, 2011, 09:36:28 AM
Rush explains Newt's rise as thus,

the Republican voters are saying to the establishment - we are not going to simply except YOUR candidate this time.  You gave as Dole, Bush, McCain and now Mitt.  We are going to take the one we like.  Newt is clearly not afraid to stick it to the "establishment".   Take that Rove, take that the Bush clan.  Take that Scarborough, take that Sununu and the rest of the ones who know what is best. 

Rush is exactly right.  I want someone to take it to Obama and liberal onslaught.  Mitt is njust too vanilla (using Ed Schultz's word).   

That said I don't take lightly the track record Newt has and the very legitimate concerns about his erractic personality.

We will se if Mitt can overcome this AND if Newt can continue to dazzle with sparks flying yet without short circuiting the whole campaign. 


I still sit on the side lines and am queitly rooting for Newt to be OUR ONE.
2878  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Education on: December 09, 2011, 11:21:23 AM
"Once upon a time, public schools could be counted on to teach everyone to speak, read and write well and then higher ed could develop specialized areas of education based on the core foundations.

(CNSNews.com) - Two-thirds of the eighth graders in Wisconsin public schools cannot read proficiently according to the U.S. Department of Education, despite the fact that Wisconsin spends more per pupil in its public schools than any other state in the Midwest."

I just did search on reading proficiency and a lot comes up and all very confusing with different definitions, ways to measure, ways to test for it, interpretations, goals etc.  I wonder how much is language barriers what not with all the foreign kids here who don't learn English.  Now we also have every learing disability under the sun with nearly everyone who can fit in some sort of category or ADD ADHD and on and on and on.

WE have more spent on schools more specialized classes and focus on these "disabilities" and yet is the above telling me 2 out of 3 kids in Wisconsin cannot read a paragrah and tell me what they read?

2879  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / correction on: December 08, 2011, 06:50:25 PM
DAVID not 'Dick' Gregory - of meet the jerks (I mean the press) shocked

Sorry Dick.
2880  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Why, Israelis love Obama on: December 08, 2011, 02:06:57 PM
Yet the recent Zogby poll (Zogby is a well known fan of the Palestinians and anit Israel) shows Brockster's popularity to be on the rise in Israel to around 54%.

Sure I believe that. rolleyes

Bob Grant has to be right - he suspects there are some big liberal machers pushing the Democrat party agenda in Israel as well as perception there and here.  Nothing new there though.

How else can one explain this?

It has to be all propaganda bulls''t
2881  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / FAF may have very well been about getting gun laws changed as Rush suspected on: December 08, 2011, 12:43:39 PM
Perhaps it isn't online maybe on Rush's website but Rush today has pointed out emails that prove he was right.  Part of Fast and Furious was exactly about liberals trying to affect gun laws in the US.  The libs thought the public outrage over people getting killed from the US guns would spark another round of public outcry for stricter gun laws.

Remember well the Prez is the guy who condescending opinion was "they cling to their guns and their religion".

The wagons are certainly circled.  The ongoing investigation is leading to a coverup that may have only one recourse - impeachment proceedings.

OK Woodward where are you now?

I am not holding my breath.
2882  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Newt Gingrich on: December 08, 2011, 12:36:42 PM
The previous post does highlight another concern I have for Newt.
That is he is full of ideas.  But do we have any clue his ideas work?

He was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer a day or two ago and his ability to just blow away all questions and challenges was/is astonishing.  No one else is even close.  Wolf was left dumbfounded.

I want Newt to go on Dick Gregory and watch him sweep the gotcha liberal aside as well.

Brock sounds like a desparate struggling broken record and Newt sounds like a genius.

The liberal onslaught is only just beginning but so far their efforts at trying to dismantle Newt with "remember....."

The Republican establishment is in an obvious panic that their chosen one Mitt seems to be in decline.

Both are hopint to paint Newt as the asshole./  So far he is shoving it their faces.   grin

 
2883  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: December 07, 2011, 11:33:58 AM
I really like Jim Rogers.  I wish I had listened to his example and sold everything before 2008.
2884  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: December 07, 2011, 11:32:16 AM
I can't say I am offended in the same vein.  I have noted how many Jews are involved in the political and social and economic and cultural liberalism over the years.  As well as the journolist.

I would say the ratio of Jews who are liberal vs "neo" cons (whatever exactly that means) is probably on the order of ten to one.

Pointing out the obvious is not bigoted.  It is truth. 

2885  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Newt Gingrich on: December 07, 2011, 11:22:28 AM
Good points from Newt.   The propaganda and outright lies from this president never end.  He obviously thinks he can get up there and say whatever he wants and his charm will simply blow us over.    The MSM is letting him get away with it and indeed mostly enable him to do it.

The other point is who are we in the US to lecture ANYONE about negotiating with one's enemies with our record in shambles.

It is just as absurd and offensive to see Brock lecturing Europe on its' debt issues.  Who are we to give such lectures.

This pompous arrogant guy in the WH has to go. 

To see the libs calling Newt pompous and arrogant.

BTW, Newt keeps mowing his obstacles down.   I would rather have an immoral Newt than moral Mitt if otherwise Newt will be better at saving the country from Brockster and the liberal socialist hordes. 

My concern now is can Newt keep it up and not self destruct?
2886  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy on: December 06, 2011, 03:22:13 PM
Crafty I cannot think of anything to add to Freidman's piece.

He eloquently argues the dilemnas that exist that we face in the world.   

Trying to sort through all this can take an entire career - with no clear pathway forward.
2887  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy on: December 06, 2011, 02:03:44 PM
Well I dunno.  If Muslims in Muslim countries want to live by Sharia let them.  What do I care.

But not in this country.  Here we live by US law period.

Desperate to shore up his base?  Probably.  Fundraising time.  Go after the big monied part of the GLBT crowd.

I have to wonder if he is really raising the kind of money being claimed.


2888  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / New fabricated calamity - thanks to the women's lobby on: December 06, 2011, 01:45:18 PM
Some women who had cancer that was not well seen on mammogram has lobbied politicians to require that doctors inform them of their "dense" breasts which might lead to a missed early cancer because of the density obscuring the spot.

So without any medical evaluation of whether lierally chasing down every dense breast in the US leading to more expensive imaging tests and more procedures mostly false postives we have a political activist going straight to the poliiticians for more gigantic spending.   Oh "but it will save lives and how much is a life worth" is the retort?

Folks there is no end in sight to do gooders.  We are so F...!

****Dense Breast Bill Veto in Calif - Lets get on Jerry Brown's case!

Jennifer1961
Posts: 130
Joined: May 2010
 October 13, 2011 - 11:22pm
Hey ladies! I'm so upset about this veto. OUr legislature passed the bill which would require that women be informed of dense breast and that mammogram may not show malignant growths. I never thought this would happen or I would have put pressure on Jerry Brown. From what I understand he bowed to the Calif. Medical Assoc. which is a very powerful lobby here. I personally could have been spared a lot of grief if I had been told I had dense breasts. I had my mammogram faithfully every year, but no one thought to mention it to me. Perhaps it could have been caught sooner and I wouldn't of had to have chemo and 6 surgeries. But I'm lucky. My tumor was close to the surface so I was able to feel it pretty easily. I know a lot of ladies aren't so lucky and they end up with a dire prognosis. This is about $$$$ nothing else. Let's give Gov. Brown a piece of our minds. Let him know we're more powerful than the Calif. Medical Assoc.

Jennifer

‹ do not want to take anastrozole? CT scan, no changes, but 10th infection since April and this time in the kidneys ›

login or register to post comments
kchaffee
Posts: 4
Joined: Oct 2011
 October 20, 2011 - 12:45am
HENDA LAW
Henda Law. All women should be informed about their breast density and
the need for additional testing. Jerry Brown is allowing women to die,
because he vetoed the law on this very issue, he has blood on his hands.

Lets start a Occupy Protest on this very important issue.............

login or register to post comments

New Flower
Posts: 2583
Joined: Aug 2009
 October 21, 2011 - 10:07pm
yes it is very important to be aware
I wish I knew, probably could catch mine much earlier
New Flower




VickiSam
Posts: 5179
Joined: Aug 2009
 October 24, 2011 - 10:37am
Okay California Gals .. I am in the processing of
gathering email addresses .. telephone numbers .. and other means of contacting .. our YAHOO IDIOT -- Governor -- Jackasss Brown!

Vicki Sam

login or register to post comments

New Flower
Posts: 2583
Joined: Aug 2009
 October 24, 2011 - 8:50pm
Good Thank you
I still cannot understand the gov. He is proposing many other spending initiatives, while young women are suffering from misdiagnosis and likely to get treatment at the very late stage. Vicki, I am glad that you have been
The content on this site is for informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Do not use this information to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease without consulting with a qualified healthcare provider. Please consult your healthcare provider with any questions or concerns you may have regarding your condition. Use of this online service is subject to the disclaimer and the terms and conditions.

Copyright 2000-2008 © Cancer Survivors Network****
2889  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Gay infadata continues on: December 06, 2011, 01:13:51 PM
Our country is falling apart and now this is a priority:

By Margaret Talev
 
(Updates with quote from memorandum, reaction from gay rights advocacy group beginning in third paragraph.)

Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration will weigh how countries treat gays and lesbians in making decisions about foreign aid, according to a presidential memorandum released by the White House.

President Barack Obama said in the document he’s directing all agencies engaged abroad to make sure U.S. diplomacy and aid programs “promote and protect” the rights of gays and lesbians.

“The struggle to end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons is a global challenge, and one that is central to the United States commitment to promoting human rights,” Obama wrote in the memorandum.

Directing all agencies engaged abroad to promote the human rights of homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender people reflects “our deep commitment to advancing the human rights of all people,” he wrote.

The memorandum directs all agencies engaged abroad to improve refugee and asylum protections for gay, bisexual and transgender people. It also calls for strengthening U.S. efforts to oppose foreign governments criminalizing homosexuality, bisexuality or transgender behavior.

Annual Reports

U.S. foreign aid programs will increase government and civil society engagement to promote gay rights, the memorandum says. The State Department will lead an interagency group tracking U.S. responses to “serious incidents that threaten the human rights of LGBT persons abroad.” Agencies are to report on their progress in six months, and then on an annual basis.

Joe Solmonese, president of the gay rights advocacy group Human Rights Campaign in Washington, said in a statement that the presidential memorandum is important as the first U.S. government strategy dealing with rights related to sexual orientation of people in other countries.

“Today’s actions by President Obama make clear that the United States will not turn a blind eye when governments commit or allow abuses to the human rights of LGBT people,” he said.

--Editors: Joe Sobczyk, Terry Atlas

To
2890  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Liberal arts ed vs. liberal agendas on: December 06, 2011, 12:29:27 PM
Rachel, interesting read.  I did a google on the value of liberal arts education.   A lot comes up.  Here is one take:

The Value of Liberal Arts Education  | Print |     
Written by Warren Mass     
Tuesday, 06 April 2010 16:00 
“The Death of Liberal Arts” lamented a headline in an April 5 Newsweek.com article that carried the subhead: “How the recession and unemployment are making schools and students rethink the value of an education in the humanities.”

The trend, notes Newsweek, was as rapid as the onset of the current recession. Case in point was Centenary College in Shreveport, Louisiana, which Newsweek had labelled in 2007 as the “hottest liberal-arts school you never heard of.”

But the recession has taken its toll. As Newsweek reporter Nancy Cook observed: “After the endowment of Centenary College … fell by 20 percent from 2007 to 2009, the private school decided to eliminate half of its 44 majors. Over the next three to four years, classic humanities specialities like Latin, German studies, and performing arts will be phased out.”

In response to changing economic conditions, Centenary’s administrators are considering the addition of several new graduate programs to increase their students’ career prospects, such as master's degrees in teaching and international business.

The college’s president explained that the school was trying offer a compromise between providing “a grounding in the arts and sciences, but they also probably need some training in a specific area.”

As another college official quoted in the article, Anthony P. Carnevale, director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, noted: "Students want something they can sell."

The report provided statistics to prove that this was no small concern, citing a recent study by the Pew Research Center that just 41 percent of people ages 18 to 29 are working full-time compared with 50 percent in 2006.

The ancient principle that “man must eat before man can philosophize” may certainly apply to our current situation, as students opt for majors that will provide them with income over those that might feed the mind at the expense of the body. However, students and academians alike may have overlooked a liberal arts education’s value in the world of commerce as well as  in the arts. As Cook writes

Among liberal-arts proponents, the concern is that students who specialize in specific careers will lack critical thinking skills and the ability to write, analyze, and synthesize information. While business education tends to prepare students to work well in teams or give presentations, it often falls short in teaching students to do in-depth research or to write critically outside of the traditional business communiqués of memos or PowerPoints. "I think you need to have both liberal-arts and pre-professional classes at the four-year level," says José Luis Santos, assistant professor in the Higher Education and Organizational Change division at UCLA. "People need to graduate with critical thinking skills because most workplaces retrain individuals for the needs of the industry."

To put it simply: Most employers would prefer to train an applicant who has already learned to think and analyze problems the specific technical skills pertinent to an industry than to teach a new employee who has technical skills — and nothing more — how to think.

In the April 5 edition of The Maine Campus, the University of Maine student newspaper, French language professor Yann Dupuy wrote an op-ed piece entitled “In defense of the liberal arts and languages at UMaine.”

Professor Dupuy cited a statement made in response to proposed budget cut by Raymond Pelletier, the chairperson of the university’s Modern Languages and Classics Department, who was quoted in the campus newspaper as saying, “We need to go at it philosophically, not by the numbers.”

“He is perfectly right," observed Dupuy. “It is a matter of philosophy, and APPWG’s [the Academic Program Prioritization Working Group] report shows the philosophy of university pretty clearly: They lean toward education over instruction.” He continues:

Instruction means giving the bare minimum of knowledge a student needs to be competent at his future job.

Education is this as well, but it also includes giving students the tools they need to later be an independent, free-thinking and morally sound citizen. Education is aimed to make one grow as a human being, while preparing for your future career as well. Education makes citizens; instruction makes good servants. (Emphasis added.)

Dupuy lamented a recent e-mail communication from the university’s dean of students, Robert Dana, in which the dean wrote: “Our primary focus remains on providing the best possible experience for our students.”

Dupuy noted: “Tellingly, in this long e-mail, the word ‘instruction’ is used once, while the word ‘education’ is nowhere to be found.”

With a sense of ironic wit, Dupuy concludes: “People go to Disneyland for a good experience, but students pay tuition for an education.”

Yet another commentary on the decline of liberal arts education, “A look at teaching ills of top-tier colleges,” a book review written by Cornell University professor Glenn C. Altschuler, appeared in the Boston Globe for April 6. Altschuler reviewed The Marketplace of Ideas by Louis Menand, an English professor at Harvard and staff writer at the New Yorker. Altschuler writes:

Liberal education, Menand reminds us, is in danger of being marginalized by the proliferation of alternatives. Twenty-two percent of bachelor’s degrees are conferred in business. Twice as many sheepskins are awarded in social work each year as in all foreign languages and literatures combined. Four percent of undergraduates major in English; two percent in history.

Over the past 30 years, the revolution in humanities disciplines has spawned a crisis of legitimacy. An emphasis on context, contingency, and interpretations rather than facts, Menand indicates, led to an abandonment of “Great Books,’’ “Western Civ,’’ a core curriculum, and, often, prerequisites for courses in the major. Professors of women’s studies, cultural studies, gay and lesbian studies, and postcolonial studies took the theoretical position that disciplinary boundaries are arbitrary and limiting.

If there is any surprise to be found in these critical analyses, it is that they originate from sources generally deemed to fall on the modernist “liberal” side of the philosophical spectrum, and not on the classically liberal side from which "liberal arts" takes its name.

Whatever the sources, and whichever labels are attached to these sources, they present a concurrence with the message delivered by the late University of Chicago professor Allan David Bloom (1930-1992) who championed the idea of “Great Books” education. Bloom became famous for his criticism of modern American higher education, and is best remembered for having expressed his views in his bestselling 1987 book, The Closing of the American Mind.

That these concerns about the decline in American education are being voiced in circles traditionally thought of as being receptive to modern “liberal” philosophy is encouraging. Perhaps the ever-more apparent impending political totalitarianism and collectivism enveloping our nation is making the need for an intelligent, informed, and thinking electorate apparent to our nation's most intelligent and honest observers, by whatever philosophical label was previously applied to them.

More and more academians apparently are realizing, as Professor Dupuy said: “Education makes citizens; instruction makes good servants.
2891  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Want to get wealthy - be Clinton lawyer on: December 06, 2011, 10:36:52 AM
I am not holding my breath that the MSM will investigate ties between Clinton and MFS.

Remember Chelsea is married to the kid of convicted Wall Streeter.

The Clinton legal military machine is already building their berms, moats, castles and other legal iron curtains around their beloved political saint.

The total corruption is mind boggling. 
2892  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: December 06, 2011, 10:31:43 AM
""non-Christian" merchants who "use Jesus to lure you in to Santa Claus's birthday party." 

GM, JJ was of course referring to Hindu, Muslim, and Buddhist "merchants".

I mean - not Jews -

I offer the challenge again. If anyone has heard any prominent Black say anything really protective or good in general about the Jews please let me know.  Of course all Balcks are not anti semites.  I am talking about the ones we see in the media for years.  The Jacksons, Sharptons, Waters, and the other well publicized "civil rights" leaders.
2893  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Obama Phenomena on: December 05, 2011, 10:34:21 AM
"All the older people I know vote with their pocketbook and don't want any changes."

Absolutely.   And that is why we can't some entitlement reform from either party.

The "greastest" generation is now the greatest entitlement class - rightly or wrongly.

It has been run like a Ponsi scheme and even Perry who honestly pointed this out was thus vilified.

I wonder if the money that was put in over the decades was really placed into the proverbial "lock box" would these programs now be solvent?

Government simply cannot keep their hands off our money and spend it faster than a person pissing from an urinary tract infection.


2894  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Obama Phenomena on: December 05, 2011, 09:49:10 AM
JDN,

My take....

In the end women will vote their pocketbooks like everyone else.  Older women will vote against Obama to some extent because they will not like how he is destroying America as we know it (and possibly medicare soc sec - if that is how it is projected).   Younger women, particularly the single mothers, will vote Democratic for obvious reasons.

I don't think the sexual thing will be a big factor despite what anyone tells us now. 

Obama and Lincoln?  They may not have been ladies men but there was one difference - a little thing called honesty.

But interestingly enough we know far more about Lincoln who lived 150 yrs ago than we do about Obama's earlier life don't we?
2895  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: December 05, 2011, 09:41:59 AM
"Chinese Ministry of State Security wants to read up on our cholesterol counts, it's just a few clicks away...."

I read that hardware has components made overseas so we should not kid ourselves into thinking there are things put into these components that can be used in ways not intended.  I don't think for one second US manufactureres of software and hardware do not have ways to get in our electronic devices.

Eventually the Chinese will probably be able to shut our entire country down with a few clicks.

That might very well the start to the next world war.
2896  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The health care chief on MSNBC on: December 04, 2011, 02:59:58 PM
We all agree that the costs of health care going up around 10% is unsustainable.  We will all go bankrupt.  Berwick "sells" (using his own term) his vision for the rest of using catch phrases like "quality", "human right" etc. 

He does admit in a disingenius way that of course we are going to ration but we should do it with our eyes open.  He is covering up the fact that extending care to 40 million people will not lower costs and that the rest of us will in some way pikc up that tab and get less.   My opinion is that he is trying to get us to socialized medicine with arguments that he can improve quality of care, save costs on needless tests, health IT, performance measures, reducing side effects, infection rates.
   
The most telling part of the interview is an example he uses of a test his own daughter's insurance refused to pay for.  He says he is a pediatrician and he can assure us she "needed" this test.  What he doesn't tell us is that insurers do not refuse tests out of the blue and not without their own data that is EXACTLY the kind of stuff CMS is planning for us.  His excuse is when the private insurers refuses payment they do not say why.  I can tell you they do have appeals processes and the processes do include the option of a review by another doctor.  Additionally everyone knows they go by actuarial data to determine what to pay for or not.  That is exactly what he is planning.    In any case health care in the US is broken.   But I don't want single payer we are all forced to be in Harvard policy makers control health care. 

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/dr-donald-berwick-on-up-w-chris-hayes/6n2a2p5
2897  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: December 04, 2011, 01:06:56 PM
"electronic medical records, something in which he believes."

There are hundreds of EMR vendors.  It is like the tech craze before the tech crash of the late 90's.  It is predicted in a few years that the number will fall to a few dozen through consokidation and bankruptcy.

Realistically they are not ready for prime time yet CMS is pushing and bribing us all to jump on board.

And no doubt there are thousands out there vying to cash in on it all.
2898  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: December 03, 2011, 11:39:15 AM
Disability rolls are also on the rise.   People are leaving the work force and desparatly getting onto disability and taking the easy way out. 

I cannot seem to find number on this but I am suspect the Feds are allowing this to lower the unemployment numbers.

There is no way people are suddenly getting jobs in droves.

But Brockster takes the phoney numbers to Hawaii for some leisure time.

2899  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: December 02, 2011, 12:55:13 PM
"A Nobel Laureate (aren't they all?)"

Every time I drive through Princeton all I can think of is "stinking liberal university professors".  All the same.  Columbia Hahvood, Yale Princeton.

I cannot think Ivy league without the thought of American hating professors teaching the propaganda.

To think this guy Krugman was given a noble prize is just as big a joke as Brock getting one for peace.

They belong in the same boat as Arafat.
2900  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / juggle/cook the books on: December 02, 2011, 12:05:33 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45521793

Great news but who in their right mind believes the numbers?  Essentailly embezzling the numbers all it is.

We ain't seen nothing yet.   Wait till election 12 nears.  No one will know who to believe.
Pages: 1 ... 56 57 [58] 59 60 ... 107
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!