• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

World Politics

Page 395 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Visit site
Alpe d'Huez said:
...

I used to really rail against people who don't vote, but after listening to George Carlin say why he hadn't voted since something like Ford vs. Carter, as it didn't matter, and there were better ways to get your word through (his through biting stage satire), I get it. But most people who don't vote, also don't do anything other than sit around and complain to no one that listens.


...

i have voted in every presidential election i have been eligible for even though i have lived outside of the US for all but one of them. never again. obama has convinced me that george carlin was absolutely right. there is only one party.

don't vote. it only encourages them.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Visit site
Scott SoCal said:
The "rest" of the world must have, among other reams of data, missed this recent twist;

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Global warming has a political underpinning and as such should be considered corrupt to the core.

Not uneasy no matter who is elected President regarding nukes. Nukes can be summed up in two words. The end.

Given what Bachmann has done with her life, what would lead you to believe she would want this? If this is what the "rest" of the world is concerned about then the "rest" of the world may need to start doing some of their own research.

Possibly, most readers would miss publications from Forbes copied on Yahoo. :rolleyes:

So, this latest data suggests that we might not be f***ing up the planet quite as badly or quickly as most respected scientists have been suggesting for decades? That's great news, but it doesn't mean that we're not f***ing up the planet. Also, when I read an entire article that repeatedly refers to "alarmist models", I know from what gopher hole of the political spectrum it's coming from - from the same corner as the following bullsh!t -

"WHEREAS, the state of Texas is in the midst of an exceptional drought, with some parts of the state receiving no significant rainfall for almost three months, matching rainfall deficit records dating back to the 1930s ... NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICK PERRY, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. I urge Texans of all faiths and traditions to offer prayers on that day for the healing of our land, the rebuilding of our communities and the restoration of our normal way of life."

Did the prayers help, Rick? How many years of drought has Texas seen since the turn of the century? (Eight, I believe.) But hey, there's nothing going on, nothing to worry about. This is all just a devilish left wing plan to stick it to big business, isn't it Rick?

"For example, they have seen the headlines in the past year about doctored data related to global warming. They know we have been experiencing a cooling trend, that the complexities of the global atmosphere have often eluded the most sophisticated scientists, and that draconian policies with dire economic effects based on so-called science may not stand the test of time. Quite frankly, when science gets hijacked by the political Left, we should all be concerned ...

And it's all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight. Al Gore is a prophet all right, a false prophet of a secular carbon cult, and now even moderate Democrats aren't buying it."

I'll continue to give more credence to scientists like Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University

"There are dozens of credible atmospheric scientists in Texas at institutions like Rice, UT, and Texas A&M, and I can confidently say that none agree with Gov. Perry's views on the science of climate change. This is a particularly unfortunate situation given the hellish drought that Texas is now experiencing, and which climate change is almost certainly making worse."



I have not studied Michelle Bachmann's life, but the general tenor of her pronouncements lead me to believe that she is a representative of what I (and many others) see as the extreme right wing Hun wing of US politics. As such, I find her unfitting to be anywhere a position that allows access to the nuclear option.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,268
1
0
Visit site
redtreviso said:
Bush already gave the farm away to them.. or else.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html

Just in case Obama had any ideas of going Andrew Jackson on them

AndrewJackson%281%29.jpg

Good read. Certainly nice to see that nothing has changed and that top dollar is being made due to privileged access to capital.

It doesn't help that only few in Congress take the dire state of the financial services industry seriously (Likewise, Mr. Issa has aggressively defended Goldman Sachs, another Wall Street giant....
Mr. Issa came to Goldman’s defense again last month in a letter to regulators complaining about restrictions on financial firms. Broker dealers “such as Goldman Sachs” faced “a substantial reduction in leverage” because of excessive capital requirements, he wrote.

Really, reduction in leverage is a bad thing? Excessive? According to the Inside Job leverage has grown on average from 1:3 to 1:33. When it comes to countries, austerity and deleveraging is actually the preferred strategy... But when investment banks borrow (read: get free money, see your article) money to 'invest' (speculate) in exotic, in-transparent and complex financial instruments regulators nor rating agencies understand while passing on the costs to society, no one objects.

And when the SEC, nor Congress is willing to lay down the law, high frequency trading is going to cause the next disaster (see Quote stuffing; HFT is Out-of-Control; High-speed trading by robots adds to market volatility, and the Securities and Exchange Commission needs to rein in their activity)

In the meanwhile, I am still waiting for Bank of America to collapse, which would cause a ripple effect and we will be back in 2008. The doomsday machine is going full throttle again:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,782315,00.html

Financial markets are inefficient and growing to the point of overwhelming the economy, according to Paul Woolley, an expert on market dysfunctionality. In an interview with SPIEGEL he explains why it's up to investors to stop dangerous trends and hold financial institutions accountable.

Woolley: The finance sector can -- and is -- growing until it overwhelms the economy. In good years the US finance industry cashes in on more than 40 percent of all corporate profits. In bad years they are saved by the taxpayers. The agents are doing a devilishly good job of developing innovative, complicated new products that people can't understand. It gives them the opportunity to earn excess returns and attract the best talent. While they are acting rationally, the result is a catastrophe.

read the rest of the interview
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Visit site
a cousin of mine works for an investment bank and is one of those people who gets 7 and 8 figure bonuses. he gets asked all the time at family gatherings what is the best way to invest and his answer is always the same; join an investment bank. "investing" is synonymous with gambling to him.

of course, he is being a bit tongue-in-cheek. but he did point out last time we met that the type of activity that is illegal for boiler room type operations is perfectly legal if your company is large enough to meet certain capital requirements, no matter how leveraged those assets are.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Amsterhammer said:
Possibly, most readers would miss publications from Forbes copied on Yahoo. :rolleyes:

So, this latest data suggests that we might not be f***ing up the planet quite as badly or quickly as most respected scientists have been suggesting for decades? That's great news, but it doesn't mean that we're not f***ing up the planet. Also, when I read an entire article that repeatedly refers to "alarmist models", I know from what gopher hole of the political spectrum it's coming from - from the same corner as the following bullsh!t -

"WHEREAS, the state of Texas is in the midst of an exceptional drought, with some parts of the state receiving no significant rainfall for almost three months, matching rainfall deficit records dating back to the 1930s ... NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICK PERRY, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. I urge Texans of all faiths and traditions to offer prayers on that day for the healing of our land, the rebuilding of our communities and the restoration of our normal way of life."

Did the prayers help, Rick? How many years of drought has Texas seen since the turn of the century? (Eight, I believe.) But hey, there's nothing going on, nothing to worry about. This is all just a devilish left wing plan to stick it to big business, isn't it Rick?

"For example, they have seen the headlines in the past year about doctored data related to global warming. They know we have been experiencing a cooling trend, that the complexities of the global atmosphere have often eluded the most sophisticated scientists, and that draconian policies with dire economic effects based on so-called science may not stand the test of time. Quite frankly, when science gets hijacked by the political Left, we should all be concerned ...

And it's all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight. Al Gore is a prophet all right, a false prophet of a secular carbon cult, and now even moderate Democrats aren't buying it."

I'll continue to give more credence to scientists like Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University

"There are dozens of credible atmospheric scientists in Texas at institutions like Rice, UT, and Texas A&M, and I can confidently say that none agree with Gov. Perry's views on the science of climate change. This is a particularly unfortunate situation given the hellish drought that Texas is now experiencing, and which climate change is almost certainly making worse."



I have not studied Michelle Bachmann's life, but the general tenor of her pronouncements lead me to believe that she is a representative of what I (and many others) see as the extreme right wing Hun wing of US politics. As such, I find her unfitting to be anywhere a position that allows access to the nuclear option.


The Nasa Satellite data is available on hundreds of web pages. I'll try not to offend your sensibilities by referencing something posted on Yahoo in the future.

So you give no credence to scientists that challenge other "peer reviewed" work? If the science on this is settled then why so much dissention? Is it the case where the scientists who disagree with conclusions of doom just want the human condition to come to an end, or is there more going on here than you are willing to admit?

Before you spew the hatred toward Bachmann perhaps you should take pause and learn a little about her life. My guess is you will not at all agree with her politics but she has quite a history of protecting the very people the liberal democrats claim to want to protect. Do that and I'm guessing you'll dial down the vitriol a little bit.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
In the meanwhile, I am still waiting for Bank of America to collapse, which would cause a ripple effect and we will be back in 2008. The doomsday machine is going full throttle again:

BofA received banking regulator's approval to buy Countrywide while the FBI was actively investigating Countrywide for fraud.

BofA was, according to Ken Lewis, "pressured" to buy Merrill, received regulatory approval and basically inherit the debt.

It was predictable that BofA would have a very difficult future. Does anyone wonder why Buffett purchased $5billion of BofA stock? Because it had been beat to the ground and he knows that Federal money will never allow the failure of BofA. Yet Buffett is one of the 'good' guys because, in his own self interest, he argues for higher tax rates. How nice.

I'm not arguing anything other than there is complete corruption at this level. The big banks, federal regulators, the Fed, the Treasury... all parties involved. So then we have Dodd-Frank (who are both corrupt) do a huge regulatory re-write to fix the corruption. It won't work, but then that was never the goal.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Visit site
Scott SoCal said:
BofA received banking regulator's approval to buy Countrywide while the FBI was actively investigating Countrywide for fraud.

BofA was, according to Ken Lewis, "pressured" to buy Merrill, received regulatory approval and basically inherit the debt.

It was predictable that BofA would have a very difficult future. Does anyone wonder why Buffett purchased $5billion of BofA stock? Because it had been beat to the ground and he knows that Federal money will never allow the failure of BofA. Yet Buffett is one of the 'good' guys because, in his own self interest, he argues for higher tax rates. How nice.

I'm not arguing anything other than there is complete corruption at this level. The big banks, federal regulators, the Fed, the Treasury... all parties involved. So then we have Dodd-Frank (who are both corrupt) do a huge regulatory re-write to fix the corruption. It won't work, but then that was never the goal.

i absolutely agree with everything you've said here. dodd and frank are corrupt, but what politician isn't? can you name any national politician that you think is not corrupt? let me define corrupt. corrupt means that in any other sphere of life you would lose your job and possibly your freedom if all of your activities were known. in other words, it doesn't just mean illegal activities performed in office, because a lot legal political activities in the US are illegal for non-politicians or for politicians in other countries.

our two california senators are extremely corrupt. particularly di-fi (full disclosure: she and her husband are/were family friends and i used to know her step daughters.) california's congress critters also are a mixed bag of nuts and opportunists.

i'll start by naming one "politician" that i think might not be corrupt. (i put that in quotes because she hasn't been elected to anything yet.): elizabeth warren. the right hates her. business hates her. many on the left hate her. geithner loathes her according to the economist. however, if she gets elected to the senate for new york, i expect that she will succumb to the corruption like everyone else.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,268
1
0
Visit site
Scott SoCal said:
BofA received banking regulator's approval to buy Countrywide while the FBI was actively investigating Countrywide for fraud.

BofA was, according to Ken Lewis, "pressured" to buy Merrill, received regulatory approval and basically inherit the debt.

It was predictable that BofA would have a very difficult future. Does anyone wonder why Buffett purchased $5billion of BofA stock? Because it had been beat to the ground and he knows that Federal money will never allow the failure of BofA. Yet Buffett is one of the 'good' guys because, in his own self interest, he argues for higher tax rates. How nice.

I'm not arguing anything other than there is complete corruption at this level. The big banks, federal regulators, the Fed, the Treasury... all parties involved. So then we have Dodd-Frank (who are both corrupt) do a huge regulatory re-write to fix the corruption. It won't work, but then that was never the goal.

Agreed, also with the ineffectiveness of Dodd-Frank (with the notion that I am of the opinion that almost no one in Congress could have re-written the financial services regulatory framework; and also that Buffet's ideas on taxes have nothing to do with the discussion on regulating financial services - I fail to see how that makes him a 'good'/'bad' guy; or how how his day-to-day business activities invalidate a legitimate point (poisoning the well much?); it just makes him a guy with one opinion on x and another on y)

I am also sure the government will have to bail BAC out when the time come, contagion and exposure^2. It would however be silly to think that only Buffet has 'access' to this information; it's almost public knowledge and many are 'betting' on a future government intervention.

So on that note:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/bank-...uction-bank-raises-another-83-billion-it-does

Bank Of America continues to desperately raise firesale capital (which it most certainly does not need).
BANK OF AMERICA AGREES TO SELL 13.1B SHRS OF CHINA CONSTRUCTION
BANK OF AMERICA SEES SALE GENERATING $8.3B PROCEEDS
BANK OF AMERICA KEEPS 5% STAKE IN CCB
BOFA SEES CUTTING RISK-WEIGHTED ASSETS BY ABOUT $16.1B BASEL
BOFA SEES SALE GENERATING ABOUT $3.5B ADDED TIER 1 CAPITAL
BOFA SEES GAIN $3.3B ON SALE

In summary: That's $13.3 billion in new capital in the past week that BofA promises it does not need. At all. As for the buyers: the same sovereign wealth funds that just bailed out the Greek banking sector for a few more days.

In addition:

Here is a track record of Buffett's previous bailouts:

GS deal struck Sep. 23, 2008 while GE deal struck Oct. 1, 2008.
GS fell 67% from Aug 25 $155.71 to low of $52 on Nov. 20
GE fell 42% from Oct 2 $22.15 to low of $12.84 on Nov. 20
NOTE: Buffett warrants in GS, GE were worthless by Oct. 8, 2008 amid rout in stocks

His cash injection will do nothing to change BAC's fundamentals.

The study of economics has become a perverse self-serving, free market hugging privatization pushing and regulation destroying enterprise coopted by 'liberals' and 'conservatives' alike and ultimately executed or at the very least condoned by the government.

Attorney General of N.Y. Is Said to Face Pressure on Bank Foreclosure Deal

One of the few who seems to want some accountability and justice (even if that might align with professional and personal ambitions) is effectively being barred from doing so.

Mr. Schneiderman has opened an investigation into Wall Street’s mortgage machinery, especially examining whether loan documents were provided to the trusts as required under securitization contracts.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
and also that Buffet's ideas on taxes have nothing to do with the discussion on regulating financial services - I fail to see how that makes him a 'good'/'bad' guy; or how how his day-to-day business activities invalidate a legitimate point (poisoning the well much?); it just makes him a guy with one opinion on x and another on y)

I am also sure the government will have to bail BAC out when the time come, contagion and exposure^2. It would however be silly to think that only Buffet has 'access' to this information; it's almost public knowledge and many are 'betting' on a future government intervention.

There's no question others are buying BAC thinking the Fed won't let them go down. But $5 billion from one entity, particularly someone who has the president on speed-dial? Surely it is a clear signal to investors everywhere.

Look, Buffett has an economic interest in higher tax rates as well as keeping the estate tax system in place with as low of an exemption as possible. It's ironic (to me at least) that everytime the old man claims he does not pay enough taxes the incredibly lazy media and leftists everywhere fail to ask any follow up questions. The statements fit with the world view so it becomes unnecessary to ponder "why would Buffett make a statement like that and what does he have to gain from it?"

Buffett is a good guy to the left because his position on taxes. Nevermind that higher tax rates enrich Berkshire. It's not poisoning the well, it's poining out a fact. Buffett appears to be an active participant (at least in this round) in the FinServ corruption taking place right now. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Visit site
Bala Verde said:
Agreed, also with the ineffectiveness of Dodd-Frank (with the notion that I am of the opinion that almost no one in Congress could have re-written the financial services regulatory framework; .

Anything that weakens the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act is better than nothing..Repeal all 3 would be just fine.

""no one in Congress could have re-written the financial services regulatory framework"" No one in congress wrote any of that sh to begin with.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,268
1
0
Visit site
redtreviso said:
Anything that weakens the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act is better than nothing..Repeal all 3 would be just fine.

""no one in Congress could have re-written the financial services regulatory framework"" No one in congress wrote any of that sh to begin with.

good point.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Visit site
30 TRILLION (in 2006) and not regulated...

""The Credit Default Swap Market

The size of the credit default swap market is large by any measure. The notational amount on outstanding OTC CDS was nearly $30 trillion in 2006 according to the Bank for International Settlements. Information published by the British Bankers' Association indicates the credit default swaps market represents over half of the global credit derivatives market. Generally, there are three sectors that make up this swap market: corporate offerings, emerging market sovereigns, and bank credits. ""

http://www.money-zine.com/Investing/Investing/Credit-Default-Swaps/
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Visit site
Scott SoCal said:
BofA received banking regulator's approval to buy Countrywide while the FBI was actively investigating Countrywide for fraud.

BofA was, according to Ken Lewis, "pressured" to buy Merrill, received regulatory approval and basically inherit the debt.

It was predictable that BofA would have a very difficult future. Does anyone wonder why Buffett purchased $5billion of BofA stock? Because it had been beat to the ground and he knows that Federal money will never allow the failure of BofA. Yet Buffett is one of the 'good' guys because, in his own self interest, he argues for higher tax rates. How nice.

I'm not arguing anything other than there is complete corruption at this level. The big banks, federal regulators, the Fed, the Treasury... all parties involved. So then we have Dodd-Frank (who are both corrupt) do a huge regulatory re-write to fix the corruption. It won't work, but then that was never the goal.

Dodd and Frank don't make anyone's list in spite of you poodling against them repeatedly..Your vote would have given us Phil Gramm(R-UBS) as treasury secretary

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1877351,00.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mar 10, 2009
7,268
1
0
Visit site
Scott SoCal said:
There's no question others are buying BAC thinking the Fed won't let them go down. But $5 billion from one entity, particularly someone who has the president on speed-dial? Surely it is a clear signal to investors everywhere.

Look, Buffett has an economic interest in higher tax rates as well as keeping the estate tax system in place with as low of an exemption as possible. It's ironic (to me at least) that everytime the old man claims he does not pay enough taxes the incredibly lazy media and leftists everywhere fail to ask any follow up questions. The statements fit with the world view so it becomes unnecessary to ponder "why would Buffett make a statement like that and what does he have to gain from it?"

Buffett is a good guy to the left because his position on taxes. Nevermind that higher tax rates enrich Berkshire. It's not poisoning the well, it's poining out a fact. Buffett appears to be an active participant (at least in this round) in the FinServ corruption taking place right now. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

You claimed twice or three times that Buffett actually stands to profit from increased taxes, but you remain awfully obscure how he would. Not that I think he won't profit, a savvy business man knows where to put his money under all circumstances and create a profit, but it's interesting to see how he would benefit from higher taxes.

That being said, if one of the wealthiest people in the U.S. will undoubtedly profit from higher taxes (something that has perhaps been disputed by 'the right' and most likely been misunderstood by the left) every single independently wealthy U.S. citizen will surely also profit from that devious 'increased taxation' scheme. I mean, it's not that higher taxes will be passed within minutes after his hotline conversation with Obama. A drawn out battle between entrenched democrats and republicans will give some indication what, if anything, will happen in the medium to long term. By the time something finally passes, all independently wealthy U.S. citizens, like Buffett, will have re-allocated their assets so that they, just like Buffett, will profit from increased taxes.

To rephrase, if Buffett stands to profit from increased taxes on the top 1% (or top 10%) of earners in the U.S. than there is a chance that many, or even all of them, may profit. In that case, there is no need to oppose raising taxes on those people in the first place.

And if Berkshire also benefits from higher taxes, well, I guess every single hedgefund will surely make a decent sum of money as well. It's not rocket science for other firms to emulate Berkshire then, if they sincerely believe higher taxes will increase profits.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,268
1
0
Visit site
Red. Last warning. Don't push it any further. We have gone through the whole you are a drunk, you are affiliated with a drunk, you vote for a drunk thing before. It's annoying and insulting and has no business here.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
You claimed twice or three times that Buffett actually stands to profit from increased taxes, but you remain awfully obscure how he would. Not that I think he won't profit, a savvy business man knows where to put his money under all circumstances and create a profit, but it's interesting to see how he would benefit from higher taxes.

That being said, if one of the wealthiest people in the U.S. will undoubtedly profit from higher taxes (something that has perhaps been disputed by 'the right' and most likely been misunderstood by the left) every single independently wealthy U.S. citizen will surely also profit from that devious 'increased taxation' scheme. I mean, it's not that higher taxes will be passed within minutes after his hotline conversation with Obama. A drawn out battle between entrenched democrats and republicans will give some indication what, if anything, will happen in the medium to long term. By the time something finally passes, all independently wealthy U.S. citizens, like Buffett, will have re-allocated their assets so that they, just like Buffett, will profit from increased taxes.

To rephrase, if Buffett stands to profit from increased taxes on the top 1% (or top 10%) of earners in the U.S. than there is a chance that many, or even all of them, may profit. In that case, there is no need to oppose raising taxes on those people in the first place.

And if Berkshire also benefits from higher taxes, well, I guess every single hedgefund will surely make a decent sum of money as well. It's not rocket science for other firms to emulate Berkshire then, if they sincerely believe higher taxes will increase profits.

This all assumes that all wealthy people not only receive their personal income the same way but it also assumes that their business interests will all be effected exactly the same as well.

I'll take you down one road but if you are interested in finding out a bit more then you'll have to do your own research.

Berkshire is a big player in the insurance industry. Among other insurance ownership positions are nearly a dozen Life Insurance Co's. So, let's take a look at Estate Taxes, just for one example. Life insurers generate anywhere from 6% to 10% of their operating income from estate plans. Wealthy people buy large Life Insurance policies with large premiums and generally place these policies in irrevocable life insurance trusts so as to remove the face amount of the life policy from the overall value of that person's estate. The reason wealthy people do this is to provide large sums of cash to their trustee(s) (generally, their kids) to pay all or a portion of the estate tax due 9 months and 1 day after the wealthy person dies.

Other than the govt, who benefits from estate Taxes? Life insurers. Take a wild guess at what happens to the estate tax exemption when the Bush tax plan expires?

Additionally, certain types of life insurance policies have very tax advantaged investment components to them and very large premium receiving policies can, because of very favorable tax rules, provide significant tax-free income in retirement years. This is particularly true the higher the top marginal income tax rate. The higher the income tax any individual pays the more these types of Life Policies make sense. Who stands to benefit? Life Insurance companies.

Who is heavily invested in several life insurance companies that is at the same time advocating for higher tax rates? Buffett.

There is more but you going to have to flesh it out yourself. If I can connect these dots surely all the intelligence on the left can as well.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Visit site
Warning from God

"""Washington, D.C. you'd think by now they'd get the message," Bachmann said at a town hall in Florida Saturday to laughs. "An earthquake, a hurricane, are you listening? The American people have done everything they possibly can, now it's time for an act of God and we're getting it."""


um... she the unsmoted?
 
School superintendent gives up $800k in pay

Some people give back to their community. Then there's Fresno County School Superintendent Larry Powell, who's really giving back. As in $800,000 — what would have been his compensation for the next three years.

Until his term expires in 2015, Powell will run 325 schools and 35 school districts with 195,000 students, all for less than a starting California teacher earns.

"How much do we need to keep accumulating?" asks Powell, 63. "There's no reason for me to keep stockpiling money."

Powell's generosity is more than just a gesture in a region with some of the nation's highest rates of unemployment. As he prepares for retirement, he wants to ensure that his pet projects survive California budget cuts. And the man who started his career as a high school civics teacher, who has made anti-bullying his mission, hopes his act of generosity will help restore faith in the government he once taught students to respect.

"A part of me has chaffed at what they did in Bell," Powell said, recalling the corrupt Southern California city officials who secretly boosted their salaries by hundreds of thousands of dollars. "It's hard to believe that someone in the public trust would do that to the public. My wife and I asked ourselves `What can we do that might restore confidence in government?'"

Powell's answer? Ask his board to allow him to return $288,241 in salary and benefits for the next three and a half years of his term. He technically retired, then agreed to be hired back to work for $31,000 a year — $10,000 less than a first-year teacher — and with no benefits.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/08/28/national/a080123D01.DTL#ixzz1WSEGgtBr

Can Evolution Breed Better Communities?

JOHN YDSTIE, host: David Sloan Wilson is an evolutionary biologist who believes that evolutionary principles work not just at the genetic level but also on the community level. Wilson is a professor at the State University of New York at Binghamton, and he's written a new book about a project he launched to illustrate that theory. It's called "The Neighborhood Project: Using Evolution to Improve My City, One Block at a Time."

WILSON: … all of my professional life I've studied the puzzle of why altruism and cooperation, how they can succeed as evolutionary strategies. Evolution is not just about selfishness. It can also be about selflessness. But how can selflessness evolve? So that's what I was doing as a scientist and then it struck me that really I should be doing in the real world. And what better place to start than my own hometown of Binghamton, New York?

… I think it's important to make my community a better place. The ones who agree strongly with that statement, and especially those who put it into action, we call them highly prosocial. So I measured that.

… Number One: a strong sense of group identity, and a strong sense of what the group is about. If you don't think of yourself as a group and if you don't know what the purpose of the group is, then it's unlikely to function well as a group. Two: proportional costs and benefits. This cannot be the case of some people do all the work and other people get the benefits. That's not sustaining over the long term.

Three: consensus decision-making. People hate being told what to do but they'll work hard for a decision that they agree upon. Four: monitoring. Most people want to cooperate but there's always a temptation to slack a little bit. And then a few people are going to actively to game the system. So, unless you can monitor good behavior, forget about it. Next, graduated sanctions: if somebody does misbehave, you don't bring the hammer down, you mind them in a nice and friendly fashion and that keeps them in solid citizen mode. At the same time, you do need to be prepared to escalate in those rare cases when necessary. Next, a fast, fair conflict resolution. If there is a conflict, it needs to be resolved in a fast and fair fashion in a manner that's regarded as fair by all parties. Seven: autonomy - for a group to do these things, they have to have the authority to manage their own affairs. Finally, in a large society consisting of many groups, those groups have to be put together using those same principles. That's called polycentric governance, a very important concept which emerged from political science but now has a more genuine evolutionary formulation.

YDSTIE: Give us an example of how you try to apply them in a practical way in your projects in Binghamton.

WILSON: One's called Design Your Own Park, which is an innovative collaboration with the city to turn vacant lots into neighborhood parks basically. That's entering its second year, and so I don't have the numbers for that one. But the project which actually has fulfilled itself is a program for at-risk high school students called the Regents Academy. To qualify for this program, you have to have flunked at least three of your classes in the previous year. And we designed the Regents Academy so that after its first year, not only did the students do much better than the comparison group but they actually performed on a par with the average high school student on the state-mandated exams. There's almost no programs for at-risk high school students that do this, other than by taking over the lives of the students with their extended day and extended school year and that sort of thing. But we did it in the context of the normal school day and year simply by designing the program with evolutionary science in mind.

http://integral-options.blogspot.com/

N.B.: Wilson's most scientifically important book, written with Elliott Sober, is Unto Others. There they show how group selection--long the bugbear of Darwinists--can function under certain conditions. That is, individuals survive and propagate not just by virtue of having certain genes, but sometimes because they are members of certain kinds of groups.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS