# RIP David Koch



## Guest

Say what you will of the man, he was a MASSIVE philanthropist, donating hundreds of millions to find everything from hospitals to museums, to medical research, to PBS, to the Lincoln Center, to the American Ballet Theater, and on and on. From Wikipedia:



> Koch established the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation.[40][41] Beginning in 2006, the Chronicle of Philanthropy listed Koch as one of the world's top 50 philanthropists.[42] He sat on the Board of Trustees of New York-Presbyterian Hospital from 1988 until his death in 2019.[43]
> 
> Medical research
> Koch said his biggest contributions go toward a "moon shot" campaign to finding the cure for cancer, according to his profile on Forbes.[7] Between 1998 and 2012, Koch contributed at least $395 million to medical research causes and institutions.[44]
> 
> Koch was a member of the board of directors of the Prostate Cancer Foundation and contributed $41 million to the foundation, including $5 million to a collaborative project in the field of nanotechnology.[45][46] An eponym of the David H. Koch Chair of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the position is held by Dr. Jonathan Simons.[47]
> 
> In 2006, Koch gave $20 million to Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore for cancer research. The building he financed was named the David H. Koch Cancer Research Building.[48]
> 
> In 2007, he contributed $100 million to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for the construction of a new 350,000-square-foot (33,000 m2) research and technology facility to serve as the home of the David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research,[49] From the time he joined the MIT Corporation in 1988, Koch gave at least $185 million to MIT.[44] $15 million to New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell Medical Center[50] and $30 million to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.[51]
> 
> In 2008, he donated $25 million to the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston to establish the David Koch Center for Applied Research in Genitourinary Cancers.[52]
> 
> In 2011 Koch gave $5 million to the House Ear Institute, in Los Angeles, to create a center for hearing restoration,[42] and $25 million to the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City[53][54] In 2013, he gave $100 million to NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, the largest philanthropic donation in its history, beginning a $2 billion campaign to conclude in 2019 for a new ambulatory care center and renovation the infrastructure of the hospital's five sites.[55]
> 
> In 2015, he committed $150 million to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City to build the David H. Koch Center for Cancer Care, which will be housed in a 23-story building in development between East 73rd and 74th Streets overlooking the FDR Drive. The center will combine state-of-the-art cancer treatment in an environment that supports patients, families, and caregivers. The building will include flexible personal and community spaces, educational offerings, and opportunities for physical exercise.[56]
> 
> Arts
> In July 2008, Koch pledged $100 million over 10 years to renovate the New York State Theater in the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, now named in his honor[57] and pledged $10 million to renovate fountains outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art.[58]
> 
> Koch was a trustee of the American Ballet Theatre for 25 years[59] and contributed more than $6 million to the theater.[60] He was also a member of the Board of Trustees of WGBH-TV,[61][62] which produces more than two-thirds of the nationally distributed programs broadcast by PBS.
> 
> Education
> From 1982 to 2013, Koch contributed $18.6 million to WGBH Educational Foundation, including $10 million to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) show Nova.[63][64] Koch was a contributor to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., including a $20 million gift to the American Museum of Natural History, creating the David H. Koch Dinosaur Wing and a contribution of $15 million to the National Museum of Natural History to create the new David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins, which opened on the museum's 100th anniversary of its location on the National Mall on March 17, 2010.[65] He also served on the executive board of the Institute of Human Origins.[66] In 2012, Koch contributed US$35 million to the Smithsonian to build a new dinosaur exhibition hall at the National Museum of Natural History.[67][68]
> 
> Koch also financed the construction of the $68 million Koch Center for mathematics, science and technology at the Deerfield Academy, a highly selective independent, coeducational boarding school in Deerfield, Massachusetts,[69][non-primary source needed] and was named its first and only Lifetime Trustee.[69]
> 
> Koch gave $10 million to the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory[70] where he was honored with the Double Helix Medal for Corporate Leadership for supporting research that, "improves the health of people everywhere".[71][non-primary source needed]
> 
> Prison reform
> In July 2015 David Koch and his brother were commended by both President Obama and activist Anthony Van Jones for their bipartisan efforts to reform the prison system in the United States.[72][73] For nearly ten years the Kochs together advocated for several reforms within the criminal justice system which include reducing recidivism rates, simplifying the employment process for the rehabilitated, and defending private property from government seizures through asset forfeiture.[73][74] Allying with groups such as the ACLU, the Center for American Progress, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the Coalition for Public Safety, and the MacArthur Foundation, the Kochs maintained the current prison system unfairly targets low-income and minority communities at the expense of the public budget.[73][75]


----------



## Room2201974

"The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones."

I'm with Elvis and Shakey:


----------



## Guest

Room2201974 said:


> "The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones."
> 
> I'm with Elvis and Shakey:


What is that evil?


----------



## KenOC

Some truly vicious hate from the left – Bill Maher, “Real Time” host on HBO:

"And now, some funeral news to report. Yesterday David Koch of the zillionaire Koch brothers died of prostate cancer. I guess I’m going to have to re-evaluate my low opinion of prostate cancer.

"As for his remains, he has asked to be cremated and have his ashes be blown into a child's lungs.

"He and his brother have done more than anybody to fund climate science deniers for decades. So f--- him, the Amazon is burning up, I’m glad he’s dead, and I hope the end was painful.”

Classy guy.


----------



## Guest

I don't wish him ill, but I think his philanthropy is overshadowed by his advocacy of right wing politics. I think his influence was to make the life of the average person worse.


----------



## Guest

I saw that video. Maher has to say that crap to keep attention on his career. He's not been funny in years. Now he just says anything he thinks will have shock value. David Koch funded more good in this world than Maher can comprehend. His only goal is to tear down. He fancies himself some inheritor of Chris Hitchens' mantle. Not by a country mile.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Baron Scarpia said:


> I don't wish him ill, but I think his philanthropy is overshadowed by his advocacy of right wing politics. I think his influence was to make the life of the average person worse.


The left has George Soros who crashed the currencies of 2 countries is that bad for the left?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

DrMike said:


> I saw that video. Maher has to say that crap to keep attention on his career. He's not been funny in years. Now he just says anything he thinks will have shock value. David Koch funded more good in this world than Maher can comprehend. His only goal is to tear down. He fancies himself some inheritor of Chris Hitchens' mantle. Not by a country mile.


Maher wants a recession to help defeat Trump.


----------



## starthrower

I've always found it a bit puzzling that the owners of massive polluter industries like the Koch owned Georgia Pacific are also big contributors to cancer research. But they're not the only ones. They also used their massive wealth to buy significant political influence for climate disinformation. https://newrepublic.com/article/154836/david-koch-changed-world


----------



## starthrower

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Maher wants a recession to help defeat Trump.


It won't be up to him but this tax cut sugar high can't last forever. Trump is a loose cannon that does not have the respect of the armed forces, our allies, or anybody else but his staunch supporters. I'd prefer any other sane and capable individual in the White House besides him. Democrat or Republican.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Say what you will of the man, he was a MASSIVE philanthropist, donating hundreds of millions to find everything from hospitals to museums, to medical research, to PBS, to the Lincoln Center, to the American Ballet Theater, and on and on. From Wikipedia:


Doesn't this belong down in the Political Groups?? (You know it does.)


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> I don't wish him ill, but I think his philanthropy is overshadowed by his advocacy of right wing politics. I think his influence was to make the life of the average person worse.


Like his advocacy for gay rights and gay marriage? Pro choice? Legalizing drugs? He was a libertarian, not a right winger.


----------



## KenOC

starthrower said:


> ...I'd prefer any other sane and capable individual in the White House besides him. Democrat or Republican.


The Democrats are still looking for someone like that! :lol: (In their hearts, so are the Republicans...)


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> I've always found it a bit puzzling that the owners of massive polluter industries like the Koch owned Georgia Pacific are also big contributors to cancer research. But they're not the only ones. They also used their massive wealth to buy significant political influence for climate disinformation. https://newrepublic.com/article/154836/david-koch-changed-world


Every large company pollutes. They have the right to their opinions.

But in the context of this forum, he was a major contributor to the arts. As I mentioned already above, he contributed millions to ballet and the Lincoln Center.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> Every large company pollutes. They have the right to their opinions.
> 
> But in the context of this forum, he was a major contributor to the arts. As I mentioned already above, he contributed millions to ballet and the Lincoln Center.


Voicing an opinion is one thing but buying influence to confuse and divide the public on a vital issue is another. And polluting a river and making people sick is not okay. But I don't deny they did some good with their contributions to the arts.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Am I alone in respecting both Soros and Koch? Both advocated policies that are within the range of reasonable debate in a civil society. What sucks is now differences in opinions about policy have become pathologized.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Every large company pollutes. They have the right to their opinions.
> 
> But in the context of this forum, he was a major contributor to the arts. As I mentioned already above, he contributed millions to ballet and the Lincoln Center.


Father, Fred Koch, a founding member of the John Birch Society, which even fellow Rich Boy Son of Rich Boy Father (remind you of anyone?) Wm. F. Buckley Jr. had to help smash as too crazy even for him. Through infamous Citizens United SCOTUS decision, we learned that corporations like Koch Industries are people just like us--ride the subway, worry about paying the bills, hope the young are on the right path--and can bundle billions of dollars to support right-wing causes.

https://www.thenation.com/article/david-koch-americans-for-prosperity-scott-walker/


----------



## Strange Magic

Bwv 1080 said:


> Am I alone in respecting both Soros and Koch? Both advocated policies that are within the range of reasonable debate in a civil society. What sucks is now differences in opinions about policy have become pathologized.


I think Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have set better examples of spending private wealth for public benefit. Buffett is well known for advocating that the mega-Rich pay a larger share of income taxes.


----------



## starthrower

Strange Magic said:


> I think Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have set better examples of spending private wealth for public benefit. Buffett is well known for advocating that the mega-Rich pay a larger share of income taxes.


Add to that a hefty inheritance tax. And not to penalize wealthy achievers but it is a fact of life that massively wealthy family dynasties are a menace to a Democratic Republic.


----------



## Guest

The Koch brothers have done a lot of good with their money. Hundreds of millions of dollars donated to help fight cancer and illness. I doubt, had they been taxed higher, that that money would have been used anywhere near as well as it was with them controlling it. Advocating for prison reform, drug legalization, medical research, PBS, etc. Had those hundreds of millions of dollars first gone to the federal government, you'd be lucky if you would see even 10% of what they accomplished realized by corrupt politicians and unaccountable bureaucrats.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Add to that a hefty inheritance tax. And not to penalize wealthy achievers but it is a fact of life that massively wealthy family dynasties are a menace to a Democratic Republic.


I challenge your assertion that is a fact. That is an opinion that is not universally accepted. Confiscatory taxation and wealth redistribution, I would argue, are far greater menaces to a free Democratic Republic founded on principles of individual liberty and equality before the law.


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> The Koch brothers have done a lot of good with their money. Hundreds of millions of dollars donated to help fight cancer and illness. I doubt, had they been taxed higher, that that money would have been used anywhere near as well as it was with them controlling it. Advocating for prison reform, drug legalization, medical research, PBS, etc. Had those hundreds of millions of dollars first gone to the federal government, you'd be lucky if you would see even 10% of what they accomplished realized by corrupt politicians and unaccountable bureaucrats.


I don't think you know what corruption is. Where do you think the money that corrupts comes from? Koch was a principal source.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> I don't think you know what corruption is. Where do you think the money that corrupts comes from? Koch was a principal source.


That is a fruitless argument that doesn't belong here, nor would it be resolved to either of our satisfaction. The point is that this man was a huge philanthropist, and numerous good things have been accomplished through his generosity. Not the least of which was his contribution to the arts and music.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Couchie said:


> I don't think you know what corruption is. Where do you think the money that corrupts comes from? Koch was a principal source.


And George Soros is a saint.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> The Koch brothers have done a lot of good with their money. Hundreds of millions of dollars donated to help fight cancer and illness. I doubt, had they been taxed higher, that that money would have been used anywhere near as well as it was with them controlling it. Advocating for prison reform, drug legalization, medical research, PBS, etc. Had those hundreds of millions of dollars first gone to the federal government, you'd be lucky if you would see even 10% of what they accomplished realized by corrupt politicians and unaccountable bureaucrats.


Imagine what good could have been/could be accomplished if we had an effective and enlightened progressive Congress and Administration. And what if, as briefly under Bill Clinton, a responsible tax policy brought in sufficient revenue to have both a balanced budget and people-oriented legislation. Not to denigrate worthwhile private charity, but a humane and rational government should be working always to--as the Constitution says--promote the general welfare.


----------



## Room2201974

All hail tax write off philanthropy. Rip off the planet for the wealth to buy Senators, scientists and the silence of PBS - this is much to be admired.

"Oh, he's very popular Ed. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, [email protected], bloods, waistoids, dweebies, kochheads - they all adore him. They think he's a righteous dude."


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> That is a fruitless argument that doesn't belong here, nor would it be resolved to either of our satisfaction. The point is that this man was a huge philanthropist, and numerous good things have been accomplished through his generosity. Not the least of which was his contribution to the arts and music.


Color me unimpressed with reputation-bandaid slush-fund philanthropy.


----------



## AeolianStrains

I don't get DrMike's logic. Taxing Koch more would have meant even more money to cancer research etc. Koch spent an inordinate amount of money in political spending. But if all that money was instead earmarked to advancing the common welfare, we'd have a net gain.

He may have done wonders for the Lincoln Center, but he is a veritable blight on humanity and a cautionary tale for the future for how money is ultimately corrupting. Koch is the "Oil Baron" of our times.


----------



## AeolianStrains

Johnnie Burgess said:


> And George Soros is a saint.


Thank you for demonstrating the popular tu quoque fallacy. What George Soros did has no bearing on how worse Koch made the world.


----------



## haydnguy

KenOC said:


> Some truly vicious hate from the left - Bill Maher, "Real Time" host on HBO:
> 
> "And now, some funeral news to report. Yesterday David Koch of the zillionaire Koch brothers died of prostate cancer. I guess I'm going to have to re-evaluate my low opinion of prostate cancer.
> 
> "As for his remains, he has asked to be cremated and have his ashes be blown into a child's lungs.
> 
> "He and his brother have done more than anybody to fund climate science deniers for decades. So f--- him, the Amazon is burning up, I'm glad he's dead, and I hope the end was painful."
> 
> Classy guy.


Bill Gates is not on Koch's side and he has a zillion more than the Koch's. The Walton's of Wal-Mart fame makes 4 million dollars an hour. Can't touch this.


----------



## jegreenwood

Baron Scarpia said:


> I don't wish him ill, but I think his philanthropy is overshadowed by his advocacy of right wing politics. I think his influence was to make the life of the average person worse.


I attend ballet at the David H. Koch Theater at least half a dozen times each year. It took a while for me not to feel just a bit dirty as I entered.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

AeolianStrains said:


> Thank you for demonstrating the popular tu quoque fallacy. What George Soros did has no bearing on how worse Koch made the world.


Crashing the British currency to make yourself rich is ok with you?


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> I challenge your assertion that is a fact. That is an opinion that is not universally accepted. Confiscatory taxation and wealth redistribution, I would argue, are far greater menaces to a free Democratic Republic founded on principles of individual liberty and equality before the law.


The subject of your thread is proof enough. As is the buffoon in the White House who bought his way in to power. And Trump's belief that regulating polluting industries is detrimental to the economy is an obvious symptom of the philosophy the Koch's have been pouring money into for decades.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

starthrower said:


> The subject of your thread is proof enough. As is the buffoon in the White House who bought his way in to power. And Trump's belief that regulating polluting industries is detrimental to the economy is an obvious symptom of the philosophy the Koch's have been pouring money into for decades.


How did Trump buy his way to the White House. Hillary spent over a billion dollars and lost. She spent way more money than he did.


----------



## starthrower

Johnnie Burgess said:


> How did Trump buy his way to the White House. Hillary spent over a billion dollars and lost. She spent way more money than he did.


Hilary did not spend over a billion dollars. But the presidency of the United States is most certainly up for sale. Those who can't raise large sums of money don't become president. Money poured into the most effective PR strategy determines the winner. And as we can see the health of the climate is on the losing end up against long term heavily funded propaganda campaigns by people like the Koch brothers.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

starthrower said:


> Hilary did not spend over a billion dollars. But the presidency of the United States is most certainly up for sale. Those who can't raise large sums of money don't become president. Money poured into the most effective PR strategy determines the winner. And as we can see the health of the climate is on the losing end up against long term heavily funded propaganda campaigns by people like the Koch brothers.


The Koch brothers opposed Trump and spent money to defeat him.
Hillary raised 1.2 billion dollars had only 1 million left. The Washington Times says she spent the most in history in 2016.


----------



## Jacck

Johnnie Burgess said:


> How did Trump buy his way to the White House. Hillary spent over a billion dollars and lost. She spent way more money than he did.


there were billionaires behind Trump too
https://fortune.com/2016/08/03/trump-billionaire-backers-list/
most notable is Mercer, who hired the Cambridge Analytica, which was also used in Brexit
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...hedge-fund-tycoon-behind-the-trump-presidency


----------



## starthrower

Johnnie Burgess said:


> The Koch brothers opposed Trump and spent money to defeat him.
> Hillary raised 1.2 billion dollars had only 1 million left. The Washington Times says she spent the most in history in 2016.


The Koch's pour a lot of money in to getting more republicans elected to Congress which can only help Trump.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

starthrower said:


> The Koch's pour a lot of money in to getting more republicans elected to Congress which can only help Trump.


And Soros spends more than them to elect democrats. In the last few years he has been targeting district attorney races. He was main one for the one in Chicago who dropped the charges on the actor.


----------



## starthrower

Which goes back to my ascertion that powerful individuals with limitless funds are shaping the the political outcomes and the policies that follow. But Dr Mike claims this isn't true.


----------



## Jacck

starthrower said:


> Which goes back to my ascertion that powerful individuals with limitless funds are shaping the the political outcomes and the policies that follow. But Dr Mike claims this isn't true.


this is a massive problem all over the world. Basically, the billionaires (or oligarchs) operating behind the scenes buy politicians, that then skew the system towards their profit. They can buy media too to brainwash the masses and the digital technologies offer new posssibilities in this respect. Basically, in every nation, there is like 30% of complete idiots and the propagandists can always count on them. You can watch the Dark Money documentary which is about US politics, but it is basically the same everywhere
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jul/13/dark-money-film-political-thriller-campaign-finance


----------



## haydnguy

Wrong thread. Take it to the conservative group.


----------



## KenOC

starthrower said:


> Hilary did not spend over a billion dollars. But the presidency of the United States is most certainly up for sale. Those who can't raise large sums of money don't become president.


In the 2016 election, Ms. Clinton and her super-PACs raised about $1.2 billion. Mr. Trump raised around half that, including $66 million of his own money. Also, the percentage of money raised from "small donors" (less than $200) was much higher for Mr. Trump than for Ms. Clinton. Info from Bloomberg.

The situation was so lopsided that The Onion had a joke news story about Clinton's finance manager being killed by a falling bale of cash at her campaign headquarters... :lol:


----------



## mmsbls

I have removed several posts starting with a comment about hoping for someone's death and others commenting on that post. I assume the original was a joke; nevertheless, we don't want our forum to be a place where people even jokingly wish for someone' death.

This thread may be fundamentally political, but the OP focused on philanthropy. People could have a discussion of when philanthropy is genuine and when it is merely done for tax purposes. People could discuss which are the "best" targets for donating large sums of money. There are many possible relevant discussions that do not involve Trump, Clinton, or direct politics. 
Please refrain from direct politics or we will shut the thread down.


----------



## Strange Magic

This was a political thread from the get-go and should have been confined (as so many similar posts) to the Groups. It is and has been clear for quite some time now that the Community Forum has become the de facto place to air political and religious views in defiance of the stated purpose of the Community Forum. And that's just fine with me if and when we remove the distinction between the Political and Religious (and increasingly politicized Science) Groups and the Community Forum.

Like this was really a thread about philanthropy!:lol:

"Forum: Community Forum
This is the place for those fun, and not so serious threads, birthday greetings, & general chit-chat. Above all, be respectful to your fellow forum members as they have a right to their own opinions too!
Any/All discussions about Politics or Religion are restricted to the Social Groups
Members can create their own Social Group. If you need assistance, please contact a staff member via Private Message."


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> Say what you will of the man...


Kinda leaves the door open for more than lighthearted praise for philanthropy. Especially when the same person left behind a hugely significant political legacy.


----------



## haydnguy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



> Any/All discussions about Politics or Religion are restricted to the Social Groups
> 
> Members can create their own Social Group


----------



## Guest

This was meant to be about philanthropy. Deride them all you want - the middle class doesn't build Carnegie Hall, or Lincoln Center, or the University of Chicago, or Rockefeller University, or Carnegie Mellon University. Like your local library? There is a high likelihood you have Andrew Carnegie to thank for it:


> In total, Carnegie funded some 3,000 libraries, located in 47 US states, and also in Canada, Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the West Indies, and Fiji


Howard Hughes, in an effort to screw over the federal government and prevent them from getting his wealth when he died (politicians had targeted him during his life) established the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), which today is a massive funder of scientific research, and being named a Howard Hughes scholar brings lots of money for research and prestige:


> HHMI spends about $1 million per HHMI Investigator per year, which amounts to annual investment in biomedical research of about $825 million.


All evil wealthy men who used their money for good and that money is now doing much more good than it would have had it first had to be filtered through government bureaucracy.

These weren't evil men - you just disagree with the political positions they espoused. When will we get past this toxic mentality that people who have different political philosophies than you must necessarily be evil? I'm sure most of you have no idea what all David Koch fought for politically. You only know that he funded Republicans and therefore must be evil. He was pro-choice. He was for gay rights and gay marriage long before Barack Obama. He was against military engagement around the globe and opposed the Iraq War. He was for criminal justice and prison reform, believing that the system was rigged to keep poor people and minorities down. And yes, he was a climate change skeptic. Quit treating people as one-dimensional. Hell - if you all treated Richard Wagner the way you do David Koch, you would all be torching your recordings of Tristan and the Ring and die Meistersinger right now. You'll excuse away Wagner's obvious and toxic anti-semitism, but damn that David Koch for not falling in line on climate change! Richard Wagner was a horrible person - he slept with other men's wives, he convinced a King to squander his kingdom's money on his own vanity projects, to the detriment of the country, and he was a vile anti-semite. And he is revered on here for the music he left behind. No such even-handedness is apparently being exercised for an individual you don't like.

The hypocrisy is sickening. You will forgive a multitude of sins so long as the person is on your side - but woe to him who dares disagree with you.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^The faux outrage. The OP belonged downstairs in one of the Political Groups. But following the growing trend of rolling stink bombs in under the door of the Community Forum, it was carefully, deliberately opened here, as the Original Poster has forsworn posting Downstairs, for the--what?--third time now?


----------



## Strange Magic

An interesting and fruitful approach to the subject of private philanthropy was that of Oscar Wilde. Wilde was not critical of philanthropy per se, but argued that a humane society must not allow private philanthropy to assuage the troubled consciences of titanic plutocrats nor act as a drag upon the necessity of a responsible government to relieve suffering, improve society, and to "promote the general welfare." The material below is from Wikipedia's excellent entry on Wilde's social thought:



> In "The Soul of Man" Wilde argues that, under capitalism, "the majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism-are forced, indeed, so to spoil them": instead of realising their true talents, they waste their time solving the social problems caused by capitalism, without taking their common cause away. Thus, caring people "seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see in poverty but their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it" because, as Wilde puts it, "the proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible."
> 
> Wilde did not see kindness or altruism per se as a problem; what worried him was its misapplication in a way which leaves unaddressed the roots of the problem: "the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good" while preserving the system.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_Man_under_Socialism


----------



## Room2201974

I never understood why people applaud the pigs at the trough of corporate welfare:






https://observer.com/2010/06/the-koch-bros-and-corporate-welfare/

So yeah, giving away millions while stealing billions. Nice work if you can get it.


----------



## starthrower

Room2201974 said:


> I never understood why people applaud the pigs at the trough of corporate welfare:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://observer.com/2010/06/the-koch-bros-and-corporate-welfare/
> 
> So yeah, giving away millions while stealing billions. Nice work if you can get it.





> The hypocrisy is sickening.


Particularly that of the "libertarian" Koch brothers. They don't practice what they preach.
https://www.ibtimes.com/political-c...on-subsidies-want-government-out-thanksgiving


----------



## CnC Bartok

KenOC said:


> Some truly vicious hate from the left - Bill Maher, "Real Time" host on HBO:
> 
> "And now, some funeral news to report. Yesterday David Koch of the zillionaire Koch brothers died of prostate cancer. I guess I'm going to have to re-evaluate my low opinion of prostate cancer.
> 
> "As for his remains, he has asked to be cremated and have his ashes be blown into a child's lungs.
> 
> "He and his brother have done more than anybody to fund climate science deniers for decades. So f--- him, the Amazon is burning up, I'm glad he's dead, and I hope the end was painful."
> 
> Classy guy.


I know little about this Koch chap, but for someone to talk about someone recently deceased with such venom shows a total lack of decency on this Maher's part. There are some people I dislike intensely, but to be grateful to cancer and to wish pain in death beggars belief.

Cambridge
University
Netball
Team


----------



## starthrower

Bill Maher is a mean-spirited comedian / TV host preaching to the choir. I wouldn't expect anything else from him. I miss John Stewart on Comedy Central. He was witty, very funny, and he has a heart.


----------



## Guest

Alright, now talk about how evil Wagner was and how we should never listen to his music again.


----------



## Strange Magic

"Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire":

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic-empire-164403/


----------



## Guest

*yawn* big bad capitalists evil. Ugh. Government should take all their money. We should stop people from saying things we don't like. Anybody who isn't in lockstep with my ideology is toxic to democracy. Blah blah blah.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> *yawn* big bad capitalists evil. Ugh. Government should take all their money. We should stop people from saying things we don't like. Anybody who isn't in lockstep with my ideology is toxic to democracy. Blah blah blah.


We get it. The Koch's are heroes of yours. Blah, blah, blah.


----------



## Strange Magic

CnC Bartok said:


> I know little about this Koch chap, but for someone to talk about someone recently deceased with such venom shows a total lack of decency on this Maher's part. There are some people I dislike intensely, but to be grateful to cancer and to wish pain in death beggars belief.
> 
> Cambridge
> University
> Netball
> Team


No doubt that Maher was way off base. Should we ban this song?

Bob Dylan, from _Masters of War_:

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good?
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could?
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul
And I hope that you die
And your death will come soon
I'll follow your casket
By the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

(And, by the way, if you see Kay, let her know I was asking about her.)


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> We get it. The Koch's are heroes of yours. Blah, blah, blah.


That's the funny thing - they aren't. Sure, they have done some things I like, but I'm no libertarian. But they have made some massive donations to great causes, and generally I prefer charitable giving over coerced government extraction of money then doled out by corrupt politicians to buy their reelection. Otherwise the Venn diagram of my political philosophy and that of the Koch's doesn't overlap a lot.

But like I said, he was a great philanthropist, like other wealthy men of the past and present. Bill Gates has put a lot of money into helping medical science. I already mentioned Howard Hughes. Carnegie and Rockefeller were also massive patrons of the arts and science.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Strange Magic said:


> No doubt that Maher was way off base. Should we ban this song?
> 
> Bob Dylan, from _Masters of War_:
> 
> Let me ask you one question
> Is your money that good?
> Will it buy you forgiveness
> Do you think that it could?
> I think you will find
> When your death takes its toll
> All the money you made
> Will never buy back your soul
> And I hope that you die
> And your death will come soon
> I'll follow your casket
> By the pale afternoon
> And I'll watch while you're lowered
> Down to your deathbed
> And I'll stand over your grave
> 'Til I'm sure that you're dead
> 
> (And, by the way, if you see Kay, let her know I was asking about her.)


I'd ban all Bob Dylan songs until he promises to take some singing lessons :devil:

Of course this song should not be banned, it's not addressed to any specific individual, particularly not to one recently deceased.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Nobody listens to Dylan for his mellifluous voice--I certainly hope you were not so misdirected! You probably wouldn't have liked Eddie Vedder's cover of the song from the Dylan tribute concert either--stark and direct and effective.


----------



## starthrower

I visited the Reason Magazine site to get the positive spin on David Koch. I found an audio blog of about 15 minutes praising his libertarian values and philanthropy which was expected. What I found disturbing was the viciousness in the comments section. Anybody that disagreed with the praise was attacked and called all kinds of names. I suppose it's an internet thing like being behind the windshield of an automobile. People think it's a license to be a pr#ck to their fellow citizens. After reading those ugly comments it felt good to come back here.

Personally I believe the Koch's did more harm than good with their massive lobbying efforts to stifle legislation to curb or tax greenhouse emissions. And to politicize climate science. Others disagree or refuse to talk about it like the punters at the Reason blog. But there was a time in the early 90s when both parties agreed that something needed to be done to safeguard our future on a living planet.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> I visited the Reason Magazine site to get the positive spin on David Koch. I found an audio blog of about 15 minutes praising his libertarian values and philanthropy which was expected. What I found disturbing was the viciousness in the comments section. Anybody that disagreed with the praise was attacked and called all kinds of names. I suppose it's an internet thing like being behind the windshield of an automobile. People think it's a license to be a pr#ck to their fellow citizens. After reading those ugly comments it felt good to come back here.
> 
> Personally I believe the Koch's did more harm than good with their massive lobbying efforts to stifle legislation to curb or tax greenhouse emissions. And to politicize climate science. Others disagree or refuse to talk about it like the punters at the Reason blog. But there was a time in the early 90s when both parties agreed that something needed to be done to safeguard our future on a living planet.


Right, that magical time back when everybody thought the same on climate change. Sure. You wearing beer goggles?


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> Right, that magical time back when everybody thought the same on climate change. Sure. You wearing beer goggles?


Now you know that's not what I said. Why do you feel the need to twist everybody's words? Is there time and space in a thread to list every congress member's position on an issue? You enjoy being relentless in your contrariness. Have a nice day.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Now you know that's not what I said. Why do you feel the need to twist everybody's words? Is there time and space in a thread to list every congress member's position on an issue? You enjoy being relentless in your contrariness. Have a nice day.


Oh, I'm sorry, we are being fair in this thread? I thought we were disparaging everyone because we disagree with their politics and discounting them out of hand.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> Oh, I'm sorry, we are being fair in this thread? I thought we were disparaging everyone because we disagree with their politics and discounting them out of hand.


Not from my position. I can disagree with someone without getting worked up or firing back with condescending replies. I'm not your sparing partner. He's the other guy posting Dylan lyrics.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Not from my position. I can disagree with someone without getting worked up or firing back with condescending replies. I'm not your sparing partner. He's the other guy posting Dylan lyrics.


I don't pay attention to him anymore. I only see him when someone quotes him. He'll have to get someone else to spar with. But this entire thread has been about a few people who can look at Koch's philanthropy and recognize it as an unambiguous good, while the rest is simply, "I don't like how he advocated for things I don't like, so I can't say anything good about his philanthropy."


----------



## starthrower

We have lost both our symphony orchestra and our 37 year old annual jazz festival in my city due to a lack of funding and corporate sponsorship so I'm all for more philanthropy.


----------



## wkasimer

AeolianStrains said:


> Taxing Koch more would have meant even more money to cancer research etc. Koch spent an inordinate amount of money in political spending. But if all that money was instead earmarked to advancing the common welfare, we'd have a net gain.


You are, of course, assuming that the government would spend that money efficiently, for the common welfare, rather than create a bloated bureaucracy to suck up much of the added revenue, or spend the money on items entirely unrelated to cancer research.


----------



## wkasimer

Strange Magic said:


> Imagine what good could have been/could be accomplished if we had an effective and enlightened progressive Congress and Administration. And what if, as briefly under Bill Clinton, a responsible tax policy brought in sufficient revenue to have both a balanced budget and people-oriented legislation. Not to denigrate worthwhile private charity, but a humane and rational government should be working always to--as the Constitution says--promote the general welfare.


Of course. But we have not had effective, enlightened, progressive, humane, or rational government for decades, certainly not on the federal level. The Clinton presidency was, unfortunately, and aberration.


----------



## Room2201974

DrMike said:


> I don't pay attention to him anymore. I only see him when someone quotes him. He'll have to get someone else to spar with. But this entire thread has been about a few people who can look at Koch's philanthropy and recognize it as an unambiguous good, while the rest is simply, "I don't like how he advocated for things I don't like, so I can't say anything good about his philanthropy."


No, this thread seems to be about those who consider philanthropy the best form of eye blinders so that they don't have to see the negative effects of the Kochheads on this world - and those of us who see right through the bs. Curious thing about the American money culture - a profit is always respected in his own town if he's a thief. (May I suggest Robert Penn Warren's _All The Kings Men_ as being far more closer to the truth here - the book, not the movie.)

As far as Koch philanthropy goes, I just want to know who inherits David's senators?


----------



## Strange Magic

wkasimer said:


> You are, of course, assuming that the government would spend that money efficiently, for the common welfare, rather than create a bloated bureaucracy to suck up much of the added revenue, or spend the money on items entirely unrelated to cancer research.


We have actually had periods of good governance here in the USA in the past, and perhaps will again. Much depends upon the Republican Party remembering its past as the party of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Wendell Wilkie, Thomas Dewey, Eisenhower, and Nelson Rockefeller. Now it is the party of Trump, White Supremacy, unlimited gunpower, and Voodoo Economics--a heady brew leading straight to catastrophe.


----------



## Guest

Room2201974 said:


> No, this thread seems to be about those who consider philanthropy the best form of eye blinders so that they don't have to see the negative effects of the Kochheads on this world - and those of us who see right through the bs. Curious thing about the American money culture - a profit is always respected in his own town if he's a thief. (May I suggest Robert Penn Warren's _All The Kings Men_ as being far more closer to the truth here - the book, not the movie.)
> 
> As far as Koch philanthropy goes, I just want to know who inherits David's senators?


That is a preposterous claim. I have never insinuated that philanthropy wipes out a person's sins. But those of your mindset seem to think that, since he didn't strictly adhere to your political mindset, you must be blind to any good they did. Both extremes are wrong. You must judge people by all their actions, not cherry-pick what suits your political mindset. Dislike him all you want. But refusing to admit that his philanthropy was good only proves that you are unwilling to treat anybody fairly if they don't toe your ideological line. And thus people will be less likely to treat you fairly.

A person who donated hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, to philanthropic enterprises that were completely unrelated to their political leanings has passed away, and I was paying respect to that philanthropic attitude. You can see nefarious motives in his giving if you like. I think it lessens you more than it does him. Whether the world is a better or worse place for his political activities is certainly a worthy topic for discussion, but not in this thread. I would have thought that the idea that his vast donations to medical research and the arts, though, would be an easily recognized good. But I guess in this age of politicizing everything, we can't even acknowledge good where we find it - everything is either absolutely good or absolutely bad. Again - I doubt you all treat Wagner in the same way. When it is someone you like, you are much more willing to view nuance.


----------



## Guest

wkasimer said:


> Of course. But we have not had effective, enlightened, progressive, humane, or rational government for decades, certainly not on the federal level. *The Clinton presidency was, unfortunately, and aberration.*


You perplex me with that line, but I'll resist, as I want to keep this about philanthropy, in spite of where others want to take it.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> I don't pay attention to him anymore. I only see him when someone quotes him. He'll have to get someone else to spar with. But this entire thread has been about a few people who can look at Koch's philanthropy and recognize it as an unambiguous good, while the rest is simply, "I don't like how he advocated for things I don't like, so I can't say anything good about his philanthropy."





Strange Magic said:


> An interesting and fruitful approach to the subject of private philanthropy was that of Oscar Wilde. Wilde was not critical of philanthropy per se, but argued that a humane society must not allow private philanthropy to assuage the troubled consciences of titanic plutocrats nor act as a drag upon the necessity of a responsible government to relieve suffering, improve society, and to "promote the general welfare."


I think I'll stick with Oscar Wilde's assessment of the philanthropy of the mega-Rich......


----------



## starthrower

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the Wagner comparison? Wagner's attitudes and opinions have no influence on the lack of political will to do something about curbing carbon emissions. But the Koch's did have a big influence.

Europe has a 2000 year history of anti-Semitism that paved the way for the Nazi Holocaust so why single out an egotistical composer who expressed some stupid prejudices?


----------



## Strange Magic

Socially responsible (and very wise and foresighted) billionaires who want their taxes raised; they understand that a healthy and secure population helps secure their own success and security. Plus, they have some simple empathy for their less well-off fellow citizens and potential customers......

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...7-other-american-billionaires-urge-2019-06-24


----------



## Jacck

starthrower said:


> We have lost both our symphony orchestra and our 37 year old annual jazz festival in my city due to a lack of funding and corporate sponsorship so I'm all for more philanthropy.


it is fortunately state sponsored in the Czech Republic. We have Ministry for Culture, which is responsible for financing cultural projects such as opera, classical orchestra or the preservation and repairs of historical monuments etc. From my perspective, it is better to pay somewhat higher taxes and let the state take care of this stuff, than to rely on the "philanthropy" of some libertarian nuts, who want to buy a good conscience by doing charity.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the Wagner comparison? Wagner's attitudes and opinions have no influence on the lack of political will to do something about curbing carbon emissions. But the Koch's did have a big influence.
> 
> Europe has a 2000 year history of anti-Semitism that paved the way for the Nazi Holocaust so why single out an egotistical composer who expressed some stupid prejudices?


Because it is a relevant example on a musical forum of people being willing to acknowledge behavior that they find deplorable while still being able to praise the good works of a person. The same can't be said for the views of many on here regarding David Koch.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> it is fortunately state sponsored in the Czech Republic. We have Ministry for Culture, which is responsible for financing cultural projects such as opera, classical orchestra or the preservation and repairs of historical monuments etc. From my perspective, it is better to pay somewhat higher taxes and let the state take care of this stuff, than to rely on the "philanthropy" of some libertarian nuts, who want to buy a good conscience by doing charity.


And that is the difference between us. State confiscation of property (money) to give some people what they want is never as good as people willingly giving their own money. The philanthropic method is morally good, and does not harm anybody. The state-sanctioned method is not always good. Tell me - some lower-wage worker whose tax dollars go to pay for the opera, or classical orchestras, and who doesn't make enough money to ever be able to buy a ticket to attend any of those concerts - what do you tell them? Don't worry - your money is being put to a much better use than you could possibly have for it, even though you likely will never realize the benefits.


----------



## starthrower

I agree Jacck. But we've got too many Philistines in leadership positions who don't give a damn about the arts. The federal budget for our National Endowments For The Arts is tiny and still members of the Republican party want to wipe it out. The Libertarians are all for reigning in our incredibly wasteful military empire but good luck with that.


----------



## starthrower

I've been a relatively low wage worker all my life but somehow I find the money to attend live performances of jazz and classical music. It doesn't have to be Aida at the Met for 200 dollars a ticket. The rear seats at the symphony Hall were 25 bucks but the Syracuse Symphony is gone now. The big company sponsors decided to spend the money somewhere else. So much for depending on corporate sponsorship.


----------



## Jacck

DrMike said:


> And that is the difference between us. State confiscation of property (money) to give some people what they want is never as good as people willingly giving their own money. The philanthropic method is morally good, and does not harm anybody. The state-sanctioned method is not always good. Tell me - some lower-wage worker whose tax dollars go to pay for the opera, or classical orchestras, and who doesn't make enough money to ever be able to buy a ticket to attend any of those concerts - what do you tell them? Don't worry - your money is being put to a much better use than you could possibly have for it, even though you likely will never realize the benefits.


it is about the right balance. If the state redistributes too much, it is bad, if the state does nothing, it is bad too. Laissez-faire is good for some sectors of the economy, and state regulation and redistribution for other sectors of the economy. There are countless examples of market failures. Healthcare is a good example. Why is the healthcare in the US so terribly expensive and inefficient compared to other countries with a different financing model? Why are the medicaments in the US 5 times as expensive as elsewhere? etc. If you look at various healthcare metrics such as the mean life expectancy, infant mortality etc, that Czech Republic achieves the same results as the US with a small fraction of the costs.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-comparison-20170715-htmlstory.html

that is because the universal healthcare insurance organized by state is the more efficient model in this concrete case.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> I agree Jacck. But we've got too many Philistines in leadership positions who don't give a damn about the arts. The federal budget for our National Endowments For The Arts is tiny and still members of the Republican party want to wipe it out. The Libertarians are all for reigning in our incredibly wasteful military empire but good luck with that.


Who, exactly, do you mean? NEA funding has been increased each year in the last two years.
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/nea-2019-budget-passed-1327829


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> I've been a relatively low wage worker all my life but somehow I find the money to attend live performances of jazz and classical music. It doesn't have to be Aida at the Met for 200 dollars a ticket. The rear seats at the symphony Hall were 25 bucks but the Syracuse Symphony is gone now. The big company sponsors decided to spend the money somewhere else. So much for depending on corporate sponsorship.


Then aren't we glad when wealthy people decide to donate large sums of money to such things?


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> it is about the right balance. If the state redistributes too much, it is bad, if the state does nothing, it is bad too. Laissez-faire is good for some sectors of the economy, and state regulation and redistribution for other sectors of the economy. There are countless examples of market failures. Healthcare is a good example. Why is the healthcare in the US so terribly expensive and inefficient compared to other countries with a different financing model? Why are the medicaments in the US 5 times as expensive as elsewhere? etc. If you look at various healthcare metrics such as the mean life expectancy, infant mortality etc, that Czech Republic achieves the same results as the US with a small fraction of the costs.
> 
> https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-comparison-20170715-htmlstory.html
> 
> that is because the universal healthcare insurance organized by state is the more efficient model in this concrete case.


Healthcare for most people in the U.S. is great. Only those uninsured have issues - as you would expect. Medicine is more expensive because essentially we are subsidizing countries like yours that refuse to pay proper prices. If we didn't pay the higher prices, then the pharmaceutical companies couldn't make money, and they would stop making them. It is as simple as that. You pay artificially low prices - the companies have to make up the lost costs somewhere, so they charge Americans more. If we followed the same strategy as you, then suddenly pharmaceutical companies would lose money on new medications, so they would stop developing them. It is as simple as that. Somebody is paying for your lower costs. Somebody always has to pay. And with as horrible as our healthcare system seems to be, I don't know of that many people hopping a flight to the Czech Republic for new, innovative medical procedures. How long does it take you to get an MRI? I got one a few months back on the same day the doctor ordered it.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> Like his advocacy for gay rights and gay marriage? Pro choice? Legalizing drugs? He was a libertarian, not a right winger.


He held some views I agree with, particularly liberal social policy. But the main thrust of his advocacy was toward dramatically reducing taxes, particularly on investment income. I suspect the tax benefits he obtained from successful advocacy of that policy dwarfed his charitable activities.

The bottom line, public support for scientific research has fallen 20% from its peak in real dollars (corrected for inflation), in part because the government has been starved of resources to fulfill its basic functions. Billionaires funding their pet projects does not make up for a robust funding for the broad spectrum of university and institute based science and engineering research.


----------



## Jacck

DrMike said:


> Healthcare for most people in the U.S. is great. Only those uninsured have issues - as you would expect. Medicine is more expensive because essentially we are subsidizing countries like yours that refuse to pay proper prices. If we didn't pay the higher prices, then the pharmaceutical companies couldn't make money, and they would stop making them. It is as simple as that. You pay artificially low prices - the companies have to make up the lost costs somewhere, so they charge Americans more. If we followed the same strategy as you, then suddenly pharmaceutical companies would lose money on new medications, so they would stop developing them. It is as simple as that. Somebody is paying for your lower costs. Somebody always has to pay. And with as horrible as our healthcare system seems to be, I don't know of that many people hopping a flight to the Czech Republic for new, innovative medical procedures. How long does it take you to get an MRI? I got one a few months back on the same day the doctor ordered it.


if you want a "free" MRI (ie the state insurance paying it), it can be 2 months. If you want to pay it (some $200), then you can get it in the same week. And the reason for higher medicament prices is somewhat different - it is corporate greed corrupting the politicians no to implement effective regulations
https://sunrisehouse.com/research/prescription-drugs-expensive/


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> if you want a "free" MRI (ie the state insurance paying it), it can be 2 months. If you want to pay it (some $200), then you can get it in the same week. And the reason for higher medicament prices is somewhat different - it is corporate greed corrupting the politicians no to implement effective regulations
> https://sunrisehouse.com/research/prescription-drugs-expensive/


Have you worked at all in any part of the pharmaceutical industry? I have. The costs associated with discovering a drug, developing it, and then getting it through all the rounds of clinical trials are enormous. And it is typically many years before any profit is realized. When you then come in and tell a company they can't charge enough to make up for those costs, they will have to recover those costs elsewhere, or they won't make the drug. Why do you think there is such a proliferation of erectile dysfunction and allergy medications? Because those aren't viewed as critical by the government, so they get to keep the patents longer before they have to compete with low-priced generics.

2 months for a "free" MRI? Got a lot of maladies, do you, that require an MRI that you can wait 2 months to get checked out? I had excruciating neck pain. I got the MRI the same day, the doctor diagnosed it, and within a week I was good as new. I can't imagine that kind of hell being stretched out for 2 months. And my co-pay was much less than $200. Reminds me of the joke Reagan liked to tell - Russian waits and waits to get a car, finally receives notice to report to the auto bureau. There he is told he has been approved to buy a car, and he can return in 10 years to get that car. The man asks, "Morning or afternoon?" The bureaucrat looks incredulous, and replies, "It is 10 years, what does it matter if it is morning or afternoon?" The man responds, "The plumber is coming in the morning."

So, you are already paying taxes for the "free" health insurance, but if you want to get treated in a reasonable amount of time, you have to pay extra? Sounds like a hustle to me. So once again - the wealthy people have the advantage? How is that different?


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> He held some views I agree with, particularly liberal social policy. But the main thrust of his advocacy was toward dramatically reducing taxes, particularly on investment income. I suspect the tax benefits he obtained from successful advocacy of that policy dwarfed his charitable activities.
> 
> The bottom line, public support for scientific research has fallen 20% from its peak in real dollars (corrected for inflation), in part because the government has been starved of resources to fulfill its basic functions. Billionaires funding their pet projects does not make up for a robust funding for the broad spectrum of university and institute based science and engineering research.


Right - tax cuts are why science funding is lower. The vast majority of tax dollars go to pay for entitlement programs. After that, it is the military. Everything else scrambles for what is left. If they jacked up taxes on the wealthy, I guarantee you that increased funding for either the arts or the sciences are not at the top of their priorities. Instead they are talking about free college tuition, Medicare for all, green new deals, etc. No - their priorities are elsewhere. And wealthy billionaires tend to give money to philanthropic projects whether their taxes are higher or lower.

Incidentally, it should also be noted that the U.S. by far spends more than any other country on research and development. The numbers from 2016 (what was provided on Wikipedia) showed half a trillion. China comes in next with $451 billion. The entire EU combined spent $379 billion.


----------



## KenOC

"Wealthy billionaires" aren't what they used to be. Today, they're just as likely to fund a Jimi Hendrix museum as to underwrite that new concert hall. And why not? Why should they consider it a good use of their money to support an art important to so few people?


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> "Wealthy billionaires" aren't what they used to be. Today, they're just as likely to fund a Jimi Hendrix museum as to underwrite that new concert hall. And why not? Why should they consider it a good use of their money to support an art important to so few people?


Are we now quibbling over whether the recipients of David Koch's philanthropy were worthy recipients?


----------



## Strange Magic

Baron Scarpia said:


> He held some views I agree with, particularly liberal social policy. But the main thrust of his advocacy was toward dramatically reducing taxes, particularly on investment income. I suspect the tax benefits he obtained from successful advocacy of that policy dwarfed his charitable activities.
> 
> The bottom line, public support for scientific research has fallen 20% from its peak in real dollars (corrected for inflation), in part because the government has been starved of resources to fulfill its basic functions. Billionaires funding their pet projects does not make up for a robust funding for the broad spectrum of university and institute based science and engineering research.


In addition, research and the free exchange of ideas on environmental issues, especially on AGW, have been strangled by this administration. The Koch brothers helped to supply the garotte. But it is hard to tell from the Good Doctor's rhetoric whether we are living in a capitalist paradise or a socialist hell here in the USA. I keep waiting for Trump to slash pharmaceutical prices but it never seems to happen.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> Right - tax cuts are why science funding is lower. The vast majority of tax dollars go to pay for entitlement programs. After that, it is the military. Everything else scrambles for what is left. If they jacked up taxes on the wealthy, I guarantee you that increased funding for either the arts or the sciences are not at the top of their priorities. Instead they are talking about free college tuition, Medicare for all, green new deals, etc. No - their priorities are elsewhere. And wealthy billionaires tend to give money to philanthropic projects whether their taxes are higher or lower.


The last time funding for science was healthy was the Clinton administration, when taxes were raised slightly and the Federal budget was close to balanced. The tide turned when Newt Gingrich and his crew came to power. The last big hit was "sequestration," which was Obama's concession to the right-wing Congress to get the government re-opened.

A prerequisite to well funded science is an adequately funded government. What do we have now? A tax cut which has raised the budget deficit to levels only seen during the great recession, and during a supposedly expanding economy. What is left in the toolbox when a recession comes?


----------



## Jacck

DrMike said:


> Got a lot of maladies, do you, that require an MRI that you can wait 2 months to get checked out? I had excruciating neck pain. I got the MRI the same day, the doctor diagnosed it, and within a week I was good as new. I can't imagine that kind of hell being stretched out for 2 months.


you should have said that you mean acute MRI. Any suspicion for an emergency get the MRI instantly - suspiction for craniotrauma, suspicion for fractures, acute abdominal pains etc. There is an MRI in almost every hospital in every district town. I thought you mean an MRI, that an outpatient orthopadician can order for some chronic back pain etc. Then you wait. All the acute problems get it instantly.

my personal view is that it is better to spend money on prevention and healthy lifestyle and that it is ultimately cheaper than to treat many chronic preventable conditions with superexpensive medications. There is also a huge problem of overprescription. Especially the internists prescribe many medicaments for chronic preventable conditions and many medicaments that are in fact not necessary.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/20/healthcare-drugspolicy


----------



## wkasimer

DrMike said:


> You perplex me with that line, but I'll resist, as I want to keep this about philanthropy, in spite of where others want to take it.


The aberration was that the federal budget was under control. The Clinton presidency was otherwise business as usual.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Healthcare for most people in the U.S. is great. Only those uninsured have issues - as you would expect. Medicine is more expensive because essentially we are subsidizing countries like yours that refuse to pay proper prices. If we didn't pay the higher prices, then the pharmaceutical companies couldn't make money, and they would stop making them. It is as simple as that. You pay artificially low prices - the companies have to make up the lost costs somewhere, so they charge Americans more. If we followed the same strategy as you, then suddenly pharmaceutical companies would lose money on new medications, so they would stop developing them. It is as simple as that. Somebody is paying for your lower costs. Somebody always has to pay. And with as horrible as our healthcare system seems to be, I don't know of that many people hopping a flight to the Czech Republic for new, innovative medical procedures. How long does it take you to get an MRI? I got one a few months back on the same day the doctor ordered it.


A large part of the positive aspects of American healthcare are the result of a Democratic Congress and President Obama passing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which Trump and the Trump Party have vowed for years to repeal and replace with something truly, amazingly wonderful. Still waiting. For those unfamiliar with the main tenets of the ACA, here they are. Remember, Republicans hate the ACA. It's all Socialism, just like Medicare and Social Security.....



> Guaranteed issue prohibits insurers from denying coverage to individuals due to pre-existing conditions.
> 
> States were required to ensure the availability of insurance for individual children who did not have coverage via their families.
> 
> Premiums must be the same for everyone of a given age, regardless of preexisting conditions.
> 
> Premiums are allowed to vary by enrollee age, but those for the oldest enrollees (age 45-64, average expenses $5,542) can only be three times as large as those for adults 18-24 ($1,836).
> 
> Essential health benefits must be provided. The National Academy of Medicine defines the law's "essential health benefits" as "ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care" and others rated Level A or B by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. In determining what would qualify as an essential benefit, the law required that standard benefits should offer at least that of a "typical employer plan". States may require additional services.
> 
> Additional preventive care and screenings for women. The guidelines issued by the Health Resources and Services Administration to implement this provision mandate "[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity". This mandate applies to all employers and educational institutions except for religious organizations. These regulations were included on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine:
> 
> Annual and lifetime coverage caps on essential benefits
> 
> All health policies sold in the United States must provide an annual maximum out of pocket (MOOP) payment cap for an individual's or family's medical expenses (excluding premiums). After the MOOP payment cap is reached, all remaining costs must be paid by the insurer.
> 
> A partial community rating requires insurers to offer the same premium to all applicants of the same age and location without regard to gender or most pre-existing conditions (excluding tobacco use).
> 
> Premiums for older applicants can be no more than three times those for the youngest.
> 
> Preventive care, vaccinations and medical screenings cannot be subject to co-payments, co-insurance or deductibles. Specific examples of covered services include: mammograms and colonoscopies, wellness visits, gestational diabetes screening, HPV testing, STI counseling, HIV screening and counseling, contraceptive methods, breastfeeding support/supplies and domestic violence screening and counseling.
> 
> The law established four tiers of coverage: bronze, silver, gold and platinum. All categories offer the essential health benefits. The categories vary in their division of premiums and out-of-pocket costs: bronze plans have the lowest monthly premiums and highest out-of-pocket costs, while platinum plans are the reverse. The percentages of health care costs that plans are expected to cover through premiums (as opposed to out-of-pocket costs) are, on average: 60% (bronze), 70% (silver), 80% (gold), and 90% (platinum).
> 
> Insurers are required to implement an appeals process for coverage determination and claims on all new plans
> 
> Insurers must spend at least 80-85% of premium dollars on health costs; rebates must be issued to policyholders if this is violated.


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> The last time funding for science was healthy was the Clinton administration, when taxes were raised slightly and the Federal budget was close to balanced. The tide turned when Newt Gingrich and his crew came to power. The last big hit was "sequestration," which was Obama's concession to the right-wing Congress to get the government re-opened.
> 
> A prerequisite to well funded science is an adequately funded government. What do we have now? A tax cut which has raised the budget deficit to levels only seen during the great recession, and during a supposedly expanding economy. What is left in the toolbox when a recession comes?


You have your timeframe mixed up. Gingrich became Speaker of the House following the 1994 midterm elections, just 2 years into Clinton's term. The budget wasn't balanced until the end of the Clinton administration - a budget constructed by the GOP controlled Congress and signed by Clinton. It was the Republicans who funded the last big increase in NIH funding - true, Clinton did sign the budget, but as we all know, all spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which was controlled by the GOP.

Otherwise I agree - federal spending is out of control. There is no longer a mainstream political party that is fiscally responsible, or even claims to be. Each successive president works to bust budgets by ever higher numbers. Opposition to deficits is purely situational - only the party out of power seems to want to restrain spending (at least spending they don't like). And why? Because it isn't politically popular. No side actually wants to cut spending - they only want to cut projects they don't like. The left wants to cut the military, the right wants to cut entitlements. And each side wants to expand spending they like - deficits be damned.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> you should have said that you mean acute MRI. Any suspicion for an emergency get the MRI instantly - suspiction for craniotrauma, suspicion for fractures, acute abdominal pains etc. There is an MRI in almost every hospital in every district town. I thought you mean an MRI, that an outpatient orthopadician can order for some chronic back pain etc. Then you wait. All the acute problems get it instantly.
> 
> my personal view is that it is better to spend money on prevention and healthy lifestyle and that it is ultimately cheaper than to treat many chronic preventable conditions with superexpensive medications. There is also a huge problem of overprescription. Especially the internists prescribe many medicaments for chronic preventable conditions and many medicaments that are in fact not necessary.
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/20/healthcare-drugspolicy


My condition was not an emergency. But it was really painful. No - it wouldn't have counted as an emergency. In reality, it was an inconvenience, not life-threatening. But it would have been hell to have had to endure it for 2 months. In the Czech Republic, I suppose I would have just had to suck it up and be a man, or pay extra even though I'm already paying for insurance.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^The answer, of course, is to both cut spending (the military is a good place to cut) and to increase revenue. The situation is not hopeless; it is solvable with an effective, enlightened Congress and President.


----------



## Guest

wkasimer said:


> The aberration was that the federal budget was under control. The Clinton presidency was otherwise business as usual.


Only very briefly, and much of that was illusory. Still, point taken. The 90s were a very good time, financially. With the Dot Com boom underway, there was a lot of money, and pretty much all you had to do was stand back and things would go well - which they did. I realize it gets ignored now, but much of Clinton's wishes were stymied once the GOP gained control of Congress after the '94 midterms. It is impossible to project what would have been had that not happened, but I doubt he would have triangulated as much to the center had he not lost Congress only 2 years in.


----------



## Strange Magic

> In proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget and corresponding tax legislation that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[5] It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.[6]
> 
> Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal. In fact, it took Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill.[7] After extensive lobbying by the Clinton Administration, the House narrowly voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 218 to 216.[8] The budget package expanded the earned income tax credit (EITC) as relief to low-income families. It reduced the amount they paid in federal income and Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA), providing $21 billion in relief for 15 million low-income families.


True facts about the Clinton budget and how the necessary tax increase just barely squeaked by massive Republican opposition.

From Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration#Tax_reform


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> You have your timeframe mixed up. Gingrich became Speaker of the House following the 1994 midterm elections, just 2 years into Clinton's term. The budget wasn't balanced until the end of the Clinton administration - a budget constructed by the GOP controlled Congress and signed by Clinton. It was the Republicans who funded the last big increase in NIH funding - true, Clinton did sign the budget, but as we all know, all spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which was controlled by the GOP.


I should not have implied that Gingrich was anti-science. He supported Clinton's goal of doubling the NIH budget. (In retrospect, that was an ill-conceived plan, since the rapid increase of funding drew a lot of people into biological science, whose work couldn't be sustained when the budget subsequently stagnated, then decreased.) But I regard Gingrich and his "contract with (on) America" as the beginning of the movement which has starved the U.S. government of resources.


----------



## Jacck

DrMike said:


> My condition was not an emergency. But it was really painful. No - it wouldn't have counted as an emergency. In reality, it was an inconvenience, not life-threatening. But it would have been hell to have had to endure it for 2 months. In the Czech Republic, I suppose I would have just had to suck it up and be a man, or pay extra even though I'm already paying for insurance.


I worked in orthopaedic surgery and traumatology for 3 years after med school and spend many hours in the emergency department treating various kinds of acute, subacute and chronic pains. MRI is the last resort. First you find out the exact history how the pain came about, then you have physical examination, blood check, ultrasonography etc. It is the job of the physician to decide if it is a serious condition or not and what to do with it. If you find out, that is not serious and that it is some harmless case of torticollis or something similar, then you prescribe some pain medication or muscle relaxant and send the person home. If you have some suspicition that it could be something more serious, then you have the option to do ultrasonography, RTG, CT or MRI. If it there is suspicion for a spine trauma, then CT is actually prefered because it can image bones better than an MRI, which is better for soft tissues such as musles, fat etc. Maybe the reason, why the US doctors do so much needless MRIs is the overlitigation. Some friend told me that he was in the US and went to a doctor with a headache and the doctor did him an MRI. That is needless overdiagnosing done probably because of the lawyers.


----------



## Jacck

https://humanmovementlab.com/for-joint-pain-mris-are-used-too-often-and-too-early/
or maybe another reason is again greed, ie to perform needless examinations in order to milk more money. I do not know how the financing system is set up in the US, ie if the doctors get paid (from the patient or from the insurance company) for performing these examinations. If they make profit by making MRIs, then they will overuse them even if they are not necessary. That is one of the problems of the for-profit healthcare system. The doctors then have an incentive to treat to you as much as they can, even for fictions or exaggerated conditions


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> https://humanmovementlab.com/for-joint-pain-mris-are-used-too-often-and-too-early/
> or maybe another reason is again greed, ie to perform needless examinations in order to milk more money. I do not know how the financing system is set up in the US, ie if the doctors get paid (from the patient or from the insurance company) for performing these examinations. If they make profit by making MRIs, then they will overuse them even if they are not necessary. That is one of the problems of the for-profit healthcare system. The doctors then have an incentive to treat to you as much as they can, even for fictions or exaggerated conditions


I don't know all the reasons for various diagnoses. I know doctors are imperfect - whether they purposely order things not needed out of some kind of profit motive, I couldn't tell you.

But that still doesn't address the issue that you have to pay extra in a "free" system if you want something done in a timely manner - unless you are an emergency case. Prevention is very important, I agree. But letting less major problems go unattended for so long because the free system can't meet demand also doesn't seem like an ideal situation - and rationing necessarily has to occur, unless, of course, you are wealthy enough to pay to go to the front of the line.

But we are going far afield from the topic of this thread.


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> I should not have implied that Gingrich was anti-science. He supported Clinton's goal of doubling the NIH budget. (In retrospect, that was an ill-conceived plan, since the rapid increase of funding drew a lot of people into biological science, whose work couldn't be sustained when the budget subsequently stagnated, then decreased.) But I regard Gingrich and his "contract with (on) America" as the beginning of the movement which has starved the U.S. government of resources.


I agree with a lot of this. I started my Ph.D. in 2000, right after the doubling of the NIH budget. For the reverence that scientists get for their intelligence, they reacted really stupidly to this. They proceeded to flood the market with Ph.D.s, without significantly increasing the number of faculty positions. So as all those Ph.D.s started to graduate, they had nowhere to go. Many were forced to do multiple postdocs, where before you could head straight from graduation to a faculty slot, or maybe do 1 quick postdoc. Now we are seeing these multi-tiered labs where Ph.D.s are getting underpaid and stuck in non-tenured positions, because scientists tend to retire at a much later age than most, thus holding onto their positions too long, and also soaking up the lion's share of the funding, as they will always look more attractive than some new faculty member who doesn't have the personnel or the resources to compete. Ph.D.s are more and more going into other fields, frustrated with the field of science.


----------



## KenOC

Certainly personal economic interests affect medical practice here in the US, but not (I think) to a very great extent. One situation that used to be common: A group of doctors would go together to purchase an MRI machine. The machines were extremely costly, and ongoing maintenance and alignment were expensive as well. To make their investment a good one, the doctors needed a pretty high machine utilization. So naturally, it turned out in some cases that MRIs were being ordered where most doctors might consider other less expensive approaches.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Some truly vicious hate from the left - Bill Maher, "Real Time" host on HBO:
> 
> "And now, some funeral news to report. Yesterday David Koch of the zillionaire Koch brothers died of prostate cancer. I guess I'm going to have to re-evaluate my low opinion of prostate cancer.
> 
> "As for his remains, he has asked to be cremated and have his ashes be blown into a child's lungs.
> 
> "He and his brother have done more than anybody to fund climate science deniers for decades. So f--- him, the Amazon is burning up, I'm glad he's dead, and I hope the end was painful."
> 
> Classy guy.


There is absolutely nothing surprising about these comments from Bill Maher. He's a junkyard dog, if ever there was one. Avoid.

People who speak like this about Koch or any other billionaire/philanthropist/industrialist/whatever have absolutely zero idea that being this wealthy means that these people have *tremendous pressures and responsibilities FOR others (workplace, etc.) that they'd never dream about - let alone cope with.*

A life well lived, I'd say.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


----------



## Guest

This is from a column by Jay Nordlinger (columnist and music reviewer for the New Criterion and columnist for National Review) back in 2015 on the naming of things, specifically the changing of Mt. McKinley to Denali:


> In the early 1970s, a man named Avery Fisher endowed the concert hall at New York's Lincoln Center. So for all this time it has been "Avery Fisher Hall." But the Lincoln Center people wanted to upgrade the place. To do that, they needed lots of money, and that meant an offer of "naming rights." The Fisher family pitched a fit and threatened legal action: They figured Avery's name should be on the hall forever. Ultimately, they were paid off ($15 million), and Lincoln Center found a new donor: David Geffen, of Hollywood. He pledged $100 million, and, starting this season, the hall will be David Geffen Hall.
> 
> Across the plaza is the David H. Koch Theater, formerly the New York State Theater. In 2008, this Koch brother pledged - as Geffen would - $100 million. And he said that, after 50 years, his name could go. A half a century was enough. "A naming opportunity should be a defined length of time to allow the institution to regenerate itself with another round of major fundraising," Koch said. Geffen has a different view - and has said that his name must be on the concert hall forever.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> There is absolutely nothing surprising about these comments from Bill Maher. He's a junkyard dog, if ever there was one. Avoid.


I can't really disagree, he is an entertainer whose shtick is being outrageous. A Rush Limbaugh of the left.


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> I can't really disagree, he is an entertainer whose shtick is being outrageous. A Rush Limbaugh of the left.


I hate that cop-out - he's an entertainer! It's rather a cowardly retreat, as if being an entertainer covers a multitude of sins.
This is still one of my all-time favorite clips from Maher's show, with the wonderful Chris Hitchens ripping Maher and his audience a new one (language).


----------



## Guest

Absolutely brilliant, Dr. Mike!! Couldn't agree more with your sentiments. And I miss Christopher Hitchens every day. He was a brave soul, largely humourless but unafraid to take on the bien pensant and exposing their raw vulnerabilities. Maher is cheap, as Hitchens suggested. And he knows it!!


----------



## starthrower

Hitchens laughed and displayed a healthy sense of humor when he was having a good time. I watched dozens of programs on YT and television over the years. That appearance with the smug Bill Maher was not one of them.


----------



## Strange Magic

Christopher Hitchens quotes:

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.
The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.
To terrify children with the image of hell... to consider women an inferior creation. Is that good for the world?
To the dumb question, 'Why me?' the cosmos barely bothers to return the reply, 'Why not?'
To 'choose' dogma and faith over doubt and experience is to throw out the ripening vintage and to reach greedily for the Kool-Aid.
High moral character is not a precondition for great moral accomplishments.
I don't think it's possible to have a sense of tragedy without having a sense of humor.
I think the materialist conception of history is valid.
I don't think the war in Afghanistan was ruthlessly enough waged.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Hitchens laughed and displayed a healthy sense of humor when he was having a good time. I watched dozens of programs on YT and television over the years. That appearance with the smug Bill Maher was not one of them.


Hitchens represents what I am arguing for here. I have a LOT with which I disagree with Hitchens - not the least of which being the topic of religion. But there is much of him that I like. I can't stand the hatred he had for religion. But that didn't mean I couldn't really enjoy a lot of what he said and wrote. And that Maher clip is him at his absolute best in cutting someone down to size.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> I hate that cop-out - he's an entertainer! It's rather a cowardly retreat, as if being an entertainer covers a multitude of sins.


I think there are very few with a liberal viewpoint that view Bill Maher as a thinker or opinion maker. He is a loudmouth for the left. To say he is an entertainer flatters him, if anything. John Oliver is someone that presents the liberal viewpoint with humor and intelligence, based on what I have seen (which is not so much).


----------



## Jacck

DrMike said:


> I agree with a lot of this. I started my Ph.D. in 2000, right after the doubling of the NIH budget. For the reverence that scientists get for their intelligence, they reacted really stupidly to this. They proceeded to flood the market with Ph.D.s, without significantly increasing the number of faculty positions. So as all those Ph.D.s started to graduate, they had nowhere to go. Many were forced to do multiple postdocs, where before you could head straight from graduation to a faculty slot, or maybe do 1 quick postdoc. Now we are seeing these multi-tiered labs where Ph.D.s are getting underpaid and stuck in non-tenured positions, because scientists tend to retire at a much later age than most, thus holding onto their positions too long, and also soaking up the lion's share of the funding, as they will always look more attractive than some new faculty member who doesn't have the personnel or the resources to compete. Ph.D.s are more and more going into other fields, frustrated with the field of science.


the whole system of Ph.D., research, academic titles, academic journals, impact factors etc should collapse. It resembles a pyramid scheme and is based on exploitation and is a perfect place for narcissists
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/20/science-victim-crisis-narcissism-academia
https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2010/12/16/the-disposable-academic


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Hitchens laughed and displayed a healthy sense of humor when he was having a good time. I watched dozens of programs on YT and television over the years. That appearance with the smug Bill Maher was not one of them.


Having read at least two of his books I am yet to detect a scintilla of humour. Lacerating observations, yes, but Hitchens was not known for humour.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> Hitchens represents what I am arguing for here. I have a LOT with which I disagree with Hitchens - not the least of which being the topic of religion. But there is much of him that I like. I can't stand the hatred he had for religion. But that didn't mean I couldn't really enjoy a lot of what he said and wrote. And that Maher clip is him at his absolute best in cutting someone down to size.


I took the religious diatribes of Hitchens with a grain of salt. It often made for amusing exchanges and entertaining television, that's all. It's the idea that somehow the believers are less than human that I found odious. But his withering comments were not just the burden of christians, muslims copped it in spades too.

This is the ONLY thing I've ever seen on Maher that was in any way funny!! It's gold.


----------



## Room2201974

"Here comes Santa Claus, here comes Santa Claus right down Santa Claus Lane"


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> I took the religious diatribes of Hitchens with a grain of salt. It often made for amusing exchanges and entertaining television, that's all. It's the idea that somehow the believers are less than human that I found odious. But his withering comments were not just the burden of christians, muslims copped it in spades too.
> 
> This is the ONLY thing I've ever seen on Maher that was in any way funny!! It's gold.


Some interesting mental gymnastics and contortions going on inside heads here regarding no religion v. Religion X v. Religion Y.

Great material for the Groups, but now freely available on Community Forum. Refreshing! Let a hundred flowers bloom; no, a thousand!


----------



## starthrower

Christabel said:


> Having read at least two of his books I am yet to detect a scintilla of humour. Lacerating observations, yes, but Hitchens was not known for humour.


No, he wasn't a humorist by trade. But he had a sense of humor. He was capable of laughing and making jokes. I've seen him do it many times. But no, he wasn't Mark Twain. I perfectly understand his hatred for religion. But he certainly didn't hate religious people with the exception of hypocrites and evil doers. I feel the same way. I don't care care if someone is a believer or atheist. As long as a person is sincere, thoughtful, and reasonable, that's good enough for me. And by reasonable I mean not a fanatic.


----------



## Strange Magic

"By reasonable I mean not a fanatic." Some clarification needed here. Does 'fanatic" include only jihad, suicide bombing, and other such direct attacks upon others? Or does it include anti-blasphemy laws, women compelled to wear religiously-sanctioned garments, men to wear funny hats or have distinctive hair styles? Or does "fanatic" include believing and preaching and teaching bizarre interpretations of reality having no visible link with the real world? My own definition of Non-Fanatic would be someone who in appearance and speech, encountered in conversation over, say, a science story on the evening news, would give me no idea of their religious persuasion or the lack of same.


----------



## starthrower

I wasn't referring only to the violent jihadists. I mean fanatics for ideology and bible inerrancy. And all of this apocalyptic armageddon stuff. The folks who literally believe Trump was appointed by God almighty. And his dimwitted former press secretary who went on the 700 Club to say so. This is anti-American. I don't see one reason to respect that position. And I can't stand the politicians who pander to that element. Trump being the number one offender. I just don't go for the all right or all wrong mindset. Evangelicals and hardcore Catholics who believe voting for a democrat is a sin. And vice versa for the the left liberals that adopt a very defensive stance when confronted with any criticism of Democrats. There's good and bad on both sides.


----------



## starthrower

Last night I watched a 20 year old Charlie Rose show with Hitchens. It was great to see him nail Bill Clinton to the wall for the phony, hollow, opportunistic character he truly is. And this was before Hitchens's move to the right. Mr. Rose appeared a bit uneasy discussing the sexual indiscretions of Mr. Clinton. And of course it has since been revealed he had a few of his own.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> I wasn't referring only to the violent jihadists. I mean fanatics for ideology and bible inerrancy. And all of this apocalyptic armageddon stuff. The folks who literally believe Trump was appointed by God almighty. And his dimwitted former press secretary who went on the 700 Club to say so. This is anti-American. I don't see one reason to respect that position. And I can't stand the politicians who pander to that element. Trump being the number one offender. I just don't go for the all right or all wrong mindset. Evangelicals and hardcore Catholics who believe voting for a democrat is a sin. And vice versa for the the left liberals that adopt a very defensive stance when confronted with any criticism of Democrats. There's good and bad on both sides.


I think we are getting far, far abroad of the topic at hand. The only point you make here that I think is relevant is your talking about people rejecting outright those who think differently than them on the important issues. David Koch's philanthropy has been dismissed out of hand by many in this discussion because he dared be skeptical of AGW, and dared use his money to advocate for his beliefs. As Kevin Williamson stated on the most recent episode of Bill Maher, arguing that money in politics isn't speech is absurd. So you want to publish something. Fine. But a printing press is really expensive, so if you pony up the costs for a large industrial printing press (millions of dollars) does that mean you are injecting money into politics?

I hope that Hitchens makes us all realize that it is entirely possible to dislike certain opinions or positions, or even deeply held beliefs, that a person has without dismissing anything else that we otherwise might find very good.

David Koch was not trying to buy salvation for himself through his philanthropy like some Catholic indulgence that Martin Luther opposed. Somehow, though, certain people think it is immoral to give philanthropically, rather than the "moral" option of handing all that money over to the federal government, who supposedly can use the money in much better ways. And this is coming from the same people who are even now talking about how corruptly and irresponsibly the current government is acting. "The president is horrible, and he is running the country into the ground . . . and we should give him even more money to do it!!!"


----------



## KenOC




----------



## Luchesi

Baron Scarpia said:


> The last time funding for science was healthy was the Clinton administration, when taxes were raised slightly and the Federal budget was close to balanced. The tide turned when Newt Gingrich and his crew came to power. The last big hit was "sequestration," which was Obama's concession to the right-wing Congress to get the government re-opened.
> 
> A prerequisite to well funded science is an adequately funded government. What do we have now? A tax cut which has raised the budget deficit to levels only seen during the great recession, and during a supposedly expanding economy. What is left in the toolbox when a recession comes?


"What is left in the toolbox when a recession comes?"

The stock market has already made a triple top. That's very bad.


----------



## starthrower

As far as the Kochs' philanthropy is concerned, if it does some good then fine. But it seems their political lobbying efforts have overshadowed the philanthropic legacy, at least in the short term.


----------



## Strange Magic

> DrMike: "David Koch was not trying to buy salvation for himself through his philanthropy like some Catholic indulgence that Martin Luther opposed. Somehow, though, certain people think it is immoral to give philanthropically, rather than the "moral" option of handing all that money over to the federal government, who supposedly can use the money in much better ways.....


The usual false choice between either all A or all B, used as a debating ploy. No known person here believes it is immoral to give philanthropically nor believes "all that money" should be turned over to the federal government. The Good Doctor would be well-advised to read the offered material in my post about the views of Oscar Wilde on the balance between charity/philanthropy and the responsibilities of an effective government.

But he won't.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> As far as the Kochs' philanthropy is concerned, if it does some good then fine. But it seems their political lobbying efforts have overshadowed the philanthropic legacy, at least in the short term.


Those benefiting from the philanthropy may wish to disagree. So how do you do that calculus? Is it a dollar-for-dollar balance? Or is the money giving weighted based on your ideological standpoint? A dollar that funds something you view as bad is 10 times more valuable than one given to philanthropy? Or do you all believe that he needs to pay some sort of indulgence - that it will take a lot more of his money going to the federal government in estate taxes in order to counteract the "evil" he did by daring to voice his opinion and use his money to advance his opinion in a country where we supposedly have freedom of speech? Some people on here come dangerously close to advocating the idea that opinion they feel are out of bounds (like daring to not believe in AGW) should be silenced.


----------



## Strange Magic

The Koch Brothers did more than just "express opinions". As oligarchs and plutocrats in charge of the huge machinery of their privately-held empire, and armed with the weapon given them by Citizens United, they are to be evaluated on the basis of opinions and deeds.


----------



## starthrower

I wasn't referring to concrete statistical data, however that is determined? But merely the press coverage since brother David's death. And for a rather odd develpment, there's the Charles Koch/ George Soros funded Quincy Institute. A subject for another thread in the basement quarters.


----------



## KenOC

Strange Magic said:


> ...As oligarchs and plutocrats in charge of the huge machinery of their privately-held empire, and armed with the weapon given them by Citizens United...


You speak, of course, of Mr. Soros, the largest single outside contributor to the candidates' presidential campaigns in 2016. Certainly not of the brothers Koch, who do not appear on either candidate's top contributor list.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> You speak, of course, of Mr. Soros, the largest single outside contributor to the candidates' presidential campaigns in 2016. Certainly not of the brothers Koch, who do not appear on either candidate's top contributor list.


Absolutely correct. Soros has his tentacles through many nations, but that's a topic for another day.


----------



## Jacck

Christabel said:


> Absolutely correct. Soros has his tentacles through many nations, but that's a topic for another day.


The Russians (I mean the governing cleptocracy) and their stooges in Europe (such as Orban) hate him very much. Much of their vitriolic propaganda warfare was directed against him, Orban has driven all his institutions out of Hungary. The reason is probably that Soros in the 1990's used his money to meddle in Russian politics through his NGO's. And the former KGB appartachniks who now rule Russia hated such meddling. Russia was no doubt involved in information warfare in the US and many alt-right conspiracy theories are likely of Russian origin. 
https://newspunch.com/vladimir-putin-george-soros-is-wanted-dead-or-alive/
(just to be sure, the linked article is an example of vitriolic Russian propaganda)


----------



## CnC Bartok

Orban je čurák. Bohužel, neznám správné maďarské slovo.....


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> You speak, of course, of Mr. Soros, the largest single outside contributor to the candidates' presidential campaigns in 2016. Certainly not of the brothers Koch, who do not appear on either candidate's top contributor list.


All need to be examined using the same lens. To their credit, the Koch Bros. could not bring themselves to endorse Trump--he was too much even for them as probably beyond their control.

From Wikipedia:

"Soros is a well-known supporter of progressive and liberal political causes, to which he dispenses donations through his foundation, the Open Society Foundations. Between 1979 and 2011, he donated more than $11 billion to various philanthropic causes; by 2017, his donations "on civil initiatives to reduce poverty and increase transparency, and on scholarships and universities around the world" totaled $12 billion. He influenced the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and provided one of Europe's largest higher education endowments to the Central European University in his Hungarian hometown. His extensive funding of political causes has made him a "bugaboo of European nationalists". Numerous American conservatives have promoted false claims that characterize Soros as a singularly dangerous "puppetmaster" behind a variety of alleged global plots, with The New York Times reporting that by 2018 these claims had "moved from the fringes to the mainstream" of Republican politics."

Sounds sinister.


----------



## Guest

CnC Bartok said:


> Orban je čurák. Bohužel, neznám správné maďarské slovo.....


Orbán egy fasz. (at least that is how Google translate did it).


----------



## CnC Bartok

köszönöm egymilliószor!


----------



## Room2201974

Van-e a G.R.U. van egészségügyi ellátások


----------



## Jacck

CnC Bartok said:


> Orban je čurák. Bohužel, neznám správné maďarské slovo.....


yes, but a just a little one, Putin is the big one. As the Ukrainians were saying, Putin khuylo!





on the other hand, in Russia they sing Takogo kak Putin


----------



## starthrower

UnKoch My Campus: The Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University headed by Susan Dudley, who has a record of opposing government regulation, is funded by the Koch Charitable Foundation. This one wasn't on the list of charitable donations to academia Dr Mike provided. I wonder why? https://www.citizen.org/article/koch-cog-rsc/


----------



## Guest

I think a film could easily be made called "Citizen Soros". The Left wouldn't like it; but they approved of one about Hearst. But he was from the Right so that's OK - he deserved it. Soros has interfered in governments the world over and has donated money causes HE sees fit; never mind the governments elected by the people of those countries. His open border advocacy of 'come one, come all' has created political instability and other problems in Europe. But he thinks it's just fine because he's using his own money to directly impose his own political will. Yes, 'sinister'.


----------



## Strange Magic

"Soros has interfered with governments the world over and donated money [to] causes HE sees fit.". And his open border advocacy has created political instability "and other problems" (hemorrhoids?) in Europe. Wow! This guy must be more powerful than Vladimir Putin. A one-man CHAOS agent. He should donate to causes that YOU see fit, or that the Koch Bros. see fit? A strong dose of both paranoia and right-wing partisanship joined at the hip with Vlad the Impaler's demonstrated campaign to poison the well by infiltrating American institutions and opinion. Jacck's newspunch link was most illuminating.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> I think a film could easily be made called "Citizen Soros". The Left wouldn't like it; but they approved of one about Hearst. But he was from the Right so that's OK - he deserved it. Soros has interfered in governments the world over and has donated money causes HE sees fit; never mind the governments elected by the people of those countries. His open border advocacy of 'come one, come all' has created political instability and other problems in Europe. But he thinks it's just fine because he's using his own money to directly impose his own political will. Yes, 'sinister'.


I am not particularly bothered by the charitable donations of Soros or the Koch brothers. I am bothered by the successful effort of the Koch brothers to change tax law to reduce their own tax liability by billions of dollars (which has left the federal government incapable of funding its basic functions) and to discredit climate change science in order to block what they saw as a threat to their fossil fuel based business empire.


----------



## starthrower

Baron Scarpia said:


> I am not particularly bothered by the charitable donations of Soros or the Koch brothers. I am bothered by the successful effort of the Koch brothers to change tax law to reduce their own tax liability by billions of dollars (which has left the federal government incapable of funding its basic functions) and to discredit climate change science in order to block what they saw as a threat to their fossil fuel based business empire.


But the Koch Charitable Foundation is a vehicle for funding and promoting their anti-regulatory agenda, among other things. Read the article I linked at citizen.org in post # 145


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> But the Koch Charitable Foundation is a vehicle for funding and promoting their anti-regulatory agenda, among other things. Read the article I linked at citizen.org in post # 145


Point taken, I would not consider such activity "charitable" but disguised political activism.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> UnKoch My Campus: The Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University headed by Susan Dudley, who has a record of opposing government regulation, is funded by the Koch Charitable Foundation. This one wasn't on the list of charitable donations to academia Dr Mike provided. I wonder why? https://www.citizen.org/article/koch-cog-rsc/


Not much to wonder - I pasted from the Wikipedia article on Koch. What is the big shock here?


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> I am not particularly bothered by the charitable donations of Soros or the Koch brothers. I am bothered by the successful effort of the Koch brothers to change tax law to reduce their own tax liability by billions of dollars (which has left the federal government incapable of funding its basic functions) and to discredit climate change science in order to block what they saw as a threat to their fossil fuel based business empire.


Can you prove any of that? Right, no Republican had ever thought of cutting taxes until the Koch brothers came along. You are putting the cart before the horse. And just how successful have their climate change efforts been? Public belief in AGW is at an all time high. Besides, they fund Republicans, right? Them how do you explain that the Democratic candidate for president who was most focused on global warming just had to drop out because he couldn't even muster 2% of the Democratic vote (Inslee), the Democrats are avoiding the issue entirely, and when the Green New Deal was put up for a vote in the Senate, it got no votes. Have the Kochs been buying them as well?


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> But the Koch Charitable Foundation is a vehicle for funding and promoting their anti-regulatory agenda, among other things. Read the article I linked at citizen.org in post # 145


What exactly do you claim to have proven here? Nobody has claimed they didn't find things to advocate their beliefs. What, you think this means all their philanthropy is tainted? Like the money going to cancer research is secretly being funneled to anti-tax advocacy? Funding ballet is just a cover for cutting capital gains taxes?


----------



## Room2201974

DrMike said:


> What exactly do you claim to have proven here? Nobody has claimed they didn't find things to advocate their beliefs. What, you think this means all their philanthropy is tainted? Like the money going to cancer research is secretly being funneled to anti-tax advocacy? Funding ballet is just a cover for cutting capital gains taxes?


I'm guessing you've never run a business in the States.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> What exactly do you claim to have proven here? Nobody has claimed they didn't find things to advocate their beliefs. What, you think this means all their philanthropy is tainted? Like the money going to cancer research is secretly being funneled to anti-tax advocacy? Funding ballet is just a cover for cutting capital gains taxes?


Unlike the philanthropy of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, there is more than a whiff of the Koch Bros. attempting to buy their own stairway to heaven, as they sense they are not universally loved or certainly not as esteemed as the likes of Gates or Buffett. David Koch's support of certain PBS programming is simultaneously praiseworthy and also carefully calculated to win hearts and minds among the PBS viewership. Funding ballet is a way of deflecting criticism away from efforts to further cut capital gains taxes. God (or somebody): please save America from the sons of superrich Texas oilmen (or New York real estate developers)!


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> What exactly do you claim to have proven here? Nobody has claimed they didn't find things to advocate their beliefs. What, you think this means all their philanthropy is tainted? Like the money going to cancer research is secretly being funneled to anti-tax advocacy? Funding ballet is just a cover for cutting capital gains taxes?


Oh sure, that's what I think. You and your nonsense responses. If you read the article you'll see what it's about. A giant conflict of interest purported to be an unbiased research center. Funded by Koch money.


----------



## KenOC

Strange Magic said:


> ...David Koch's support of certain PBS programming is simultaneously praiseworthy and also carefully calculated to win hearts and minds among the PBS viewership. Funding ballet is a way of deflecting criticism away from efforts to further cut capital gains taxes...


"(Cackle cackle) And while all those liberals are distracted by ballet on their TVs, we'll sneak in and slash our taxes! They won't even notice -- until it's too late! (cackles madly)"


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> "(Cackle cackle) And while all those liberals are distracted by ballet on their TVs, we'll sneak in and slash our taxes! They won't even notice -- until it's too late! (cackles madly)"


As a regular PBS viewer and monetary supporter, I feel uncomfortable that PBS takes Koch money as government funding has been stripped away over the decades. It is obvious to me that the Kochs are indeed attempting to divert attention away from their corporate sins and misdeeds and trying to curry favor with the PBS audience: "Well, the Kochs can't be so bad; they love ballet, science, whatever." I take it you A) don't watch PBS, or B) don't care where the money comes from.

With all that cackling, somebody is about to lay an egg!


----------



## KenOC

It's amazing how those we disagree with are always driven by the basest motives and most malignant intents, while those we agree with are (as they say) pure as the driven snow. That, at least, never changes.


----------



## starthrower

What with all of the corporate sponsorship of PBS and NPR they may as well switch the Public to Petroleum. Or they could call it the Walmart channel. The results of another Republican strategy to hijack the public airwaves.


----------



## Luchesi

Christabel said:


> I took the religious diatribes of Hitchens with a grain of salt. It often made for amusing exchanges and entertaining television, that's all. It's the idea that somehow the believers are less than human that I found odious. But his withering comments were not just the burden of christians, muslims copped it in spades too.
> 
> This is the ONLY thing I've ever seen on Maher that was in any way funny!! It's gold.


What does the Quran really say about a Muslim woman's hijab?






She is hypnotizing..


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> It's amazing how those we disagree with are always driven by the basest motives and most malignant intents, while those we agree with are (as they say) pure as the driven snow. That, at least, never changes.


I attempt always (and usually succeed) to be on the side of the angels.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> What exactly do you claim to have proven here? Nobody has claimed they didn't find things to advocate their beliefs. What, you think this means all their philanthropy is tainted? Like the money going to cancer research is secretly being funneled to anti-tax advocacy? Funding ballet is just a cover for cutting capital gains taxes?


I have no objection to their donations to cancer research, the ballet, Lincoln center, etc. What I object to is that they funnel huge sums of money to various PACs which support candidates who advocate tax cuts for the investor class, deregulation, privatization, denial of climate change science that would be a threat to the fossil fuel industry. They advocate position which I think are detrimental to the public good, and which benefit them personally. (I suspect the bona-fide philanthropy does not exceed the benefits they have reaped from their political activities.) I don't think wealthy individuals should be able to spend without bound to further their political goals. I'm not happy with left-leaning billionaires doing the same thing, although I am not aware of any left-wing billionaires who do anything on the same scale as the Koch brothers.


----------



## CnC Bartok

The current attitude towards George Soros in Central Europe is quite bewildering. It is us in the UK who could have a major beef with him, seeing as it was he who almost single-handedly ripped the Pound out of the ERM back in 1992. Very clever, I doubt there was anything vindictive in it?

He was very good at undermining governments in Eastern Europe before 1989, with financial help aimed at the likes of Solidarity, Charter 77 etc, and so his role in the freeing the Central European nations from the horrors of Communism and the shackles of Soviet control cannot be underestimated, yet now in his homeland of Hungary, he is vilified. Whatever he does, it is wrong for some reason. The saga over the Central European University will be an embarrassment for Hungary for years to come, but presently, the nationalist rhetoric of Viktor Orban appeals more. 

And it doesn't take a genius to detect some very very blunt anti-Semitism at the heart of this. This is both hideous and immensely tragic


----------



## Jacck

CnC Bartok said:


> The current attitude towards George Soros in Central Europe is quite bewildering. It is us in the UK who could have a major beef with him, seeing as it was he who almost single-handedly ripped the Pound out of the ERM back in 1992. Very clever, I doubt there was anything vindictive in it?
> 
> He was very good at undermining governments in Eastern Europe before 1989, with financial help aimed at the likes of Solidarity, Charter 77 etc, and so his role in the freeing the Central European nations from the horrors of Communism and the shackles of Soviet control cannot be underestimated, yet now in his homeland of Hungary, he is vilified. Whatever he does, it is wrong for some reason. The saga over the Central European University will be an embarrassment for Hungary for years to come, but presently, the nationalist rhetoric of Viktor Orban appeals more.
> 
> And it doesn't take a genius to detect some very very blunt anti-Semitism at the heart of this. This is both hideous and immensely tragic


again, the Russians are behind it. The Russians have been spreading their poison in Central Europe at least from 2000 and Soros has been one of the primary targets of it (and in Czech Republic, Havel too). You can say, that the Russians first tested their hybrid and information warfare in Central Europe, and only later used it in the West. The modern propaganda is not as blunt as claiming that Russia is good and USA is bad, it is much more sophisticated. Listen to this talk of the KGB defector from the 1980's to get an idea and realize that Putin was an KGB officer who went through KGB schools. Lies and deception was his job. And the methods described in the video have been amplified through modern technologies such as the internet.





PS: Orban is of course one those unfortunate right-wing semi-fascists who seem to dominate current political landscape of many countries. (Erdogan, Kaczynsky etc.)


----------



## CnC Bartok

^^^ None of that is in the slightest bit surprising. And your clown/president is not helping matters either......


----------



## Jacck

CnC Bartok said:


> ^^^ None of that is in the slightest bit surprising. And your clown/president is not helping matter either......


at this point, Zeman is unimportant. He will die and go to hell soon. And those people who elected him will soon die too (mostly old people with communist mentality). Babiš likely reached his hight point too and will only slide downwards. There will be a generational shift in our politics, as the old post-communist generation of politicians and voters will be replaced by the younger generations. I personally have no doubt whatsoever, that both Zeman and Klaus were KGB agents. 
https://en.delfi.lt/politics/putins...-a-country-within-several-years.d?id=69644004


----------



## CnC Bartok

Jacck said:


> at this point, Zeman is unimportant. He will die and go to hell soon. And those people who elected him will soon die too (mostly old people with communist mentality). Babiš likely reached his hight point too and will only slide downwards. There will be a generational shift in our politics, as the old post-communist generation of politicians and voters will be replaced by the younger generations. I personally have no doubt whatsoever, that both Zeman and Klaus were KGB agents.
> https://en.delfi.lt/politics/putins...-a-country-within-several-years.d?id=69644004


Well, they're taking their time over it! While Prague might have voted heavily for Drahoš last year, the rest of the country didn't. When I lived out there, the Czech Republic was in danger of becoming a quiet, gentle beacon of post-Communist stability and - for want of a better word - decency.....


----------



## Jacck

CnC Bartok said:


> Well, they're taking their time over it! While Prague might have voted heavily for Drahoš last year, the rest of the country didn't. When I lived out there, the Czech Republic was in danger of becoming a quiet, gentle beacon of post-Communist stability and - for want if a better word - decency.....


Czech Republic is still a stable and decent country for living and I am optimistic for the future. The lowpoint was Klaus in my opinion. What people see on the surface is Zeman. But Zeman is not the whole country, he is even not that powerful (he has much less power than the US president), and there is strong opposition towards him. And more importantly, the Russian subversive and propaganda tactics have one drawback, time works against them, because people are becoming wise about it. 10 years ago I was one of the few who saw and claimed that Zeman and Klaus are Russian agents, nowadays it is basically common knowledge. So people are wary of Russia and their tactics. 
I give you an example why Zeman is not that powerful. There was the case with the Russian hacker Nikulin. He was obviously very valuable, because Putin personally involved himself in this case, so did the USA. Despite massive efforts by Zeman and the Russians, he was still extraditied to the USA
https://www.radio.cz/en/section/cur...lic-for-extradition-of-suspected-hacker-to-us


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> I have no objection to their donations to cancer research, the ballet, Lincoln center, etc. What I object to is that they funnel huge sums of money to various PACs which support candidates who advocate tax cuts for the investor class, deregulation, privatization, denial of climate change science that would be a threat to the fossil fuel industry. They advocate position which I think are detrimental to the public good, and which benefit them personally. (I suspect the bona-fide philanthropy does not exceed the benefits they have reaped from their political activities.) I don't think wealthy individuals should be able to spend without bound to further their political goals. I'm not happy with left-leaning billionaires doing the same thing, although I am not aware of any left-wing billionaires who do anything on the same scale as the Koch brothers.


So you would also denounce, say, Al Gore, who has gotten vastly wealthy off of his climate change advocacy? Sure, not as much as the Kochs, but then he also doesn't provide goods that people want to buy.

And you also don't like how much money Tom Steyer, currently running for president, has spent to further his political goals?

Or Michael Bloomberg in the 2018 cycle, in addition to all the money he puts into the gun control movement?

Donald Sussman, a billionaire hedge fund manager, who donated $20 million in the 2018 cycle to elect Democrats?

This is how much Koch Industries donated to candidates in 2018:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=d000000186

Or here you go, the list of top donors and how much they gave and who they donated to - go ahead and denounce all those liberals:
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php


----------



## Strange Magic

I do not know how old the Good Doctor is, but he has yet to discover that there are profound differences between the two American political parties, and have been since 1932. In the long sweep of history, the Republican Party transformed itself from the party of Union and Emancipation under Lincoln, Sumner, Seward, Stevens, and, later, briefly the party of progressive reform under T. Roosevelt into something quite different. The creeping darkness that began to envelope the Republican Party ifollowing the expulsion of Theodore Roosevelt was somewhat mitigated during the era of "white-shoe" Republicans Wilkie, Dewey, Eisenhower, and Nelson Rockefeller. This ended in a crash when the party under Richard Nixon turned to the White Supremacist south and anti-"communist/socialist" paranoia, lost the African-American vote permanently to the Democrats, and began to embrace the support of religious fanatics, gun psychotics, Voodoo economists, and conspiracy theorists.

The Democrats were resurrected by FDR from post-Wilson inertia and, in a stunning role-reversal, became the champions of civil rights and thus of the African American and other minorities. The Democrats' Tax-and-Spend policies, supported briefly by both parties, gave us almost seventy years of improving conditions for millions despite the terrible Vietnam War. This all began to unravel with the advent of Reagan, Voodoo Economics, and the growing strength within the Republican Party of right-wing paranoia, appeals to nativism, theocracy, the gun fanatics of the NRA, and the lowering of standards such that the Party of Lincoln could embrace fervently a Donald Trump, along with routine trillion-dollar deficits during a brief period of dearly-bought prosperity for those at the very top while the rest of the population enjoys crumbs fallen from the table.

This may be why millionaires and billionaires with a long-term view of the necessity for a healthy society top-to-bottom support Democrats (and also believe the scientists warning of AGW), while the Koch Brothers lavish their funds upon only those politicians who favor the Good Life at the Top for the One-Percenters, and who deny AGW.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Jacck said:


> Czech Republic is still a stable and decent country for living and I am optimistic for the future. The lowpoint was Klaus in my opinion. What people see on the surface is Zeman. But Zeman is not the whole country, he is even not that powerful (he has much less power than the US president), and there is strong opposition towards him. And more importantly, the Russian subversive and propaganda tactics have one drawback, time works against them, because people are becoming wise about it. 10 years ago I was one of the few who saw and claimed that Zeman and Klaus are Russian agents, nowadays it is basically common knowledge. So people are wary of Russia and their tactics.
> I give you an example why Zeman is not that powerful. There was the case with the Russian hacker Nikulin. He was obviously very valuable, because Putin personally involved himself in this case, so did the USA. Despite massive efforts by Zeman and the Russians, he was still extraditied to the USA
> https://www.radio.cz/en/section/cur...lic-for-extradition-of-suspected-hacker-to-us


The trouble is Milos Zeman is the FACE of the Czech Republic. I know he's not that powerful, but still......

I hope and pray you are right on your first point....


----------



## Jacck

CnC Bartok said:


> The trouble is Milos Zeman is the FACE of the Czech Republic. I know he's not that powerful, but still......
> 
> I hope and pray you are right on your first point....


Zeman is passé. He is in his second term. He will be out in 3 years or the devil will claim him sooner, I am fine with both possibilities. The reason why the presidency position is so valuable for the Russians (despite the president being largely representative figure) is that he has great power to shape the public discourse, poison the society with Russian propaganda, serve as a Russian trojan horse in the EU etc. It is like if the Queen of England were a Russian agent. She has likely not much formal power, but has a diplomatic power and the power to shape the public discourse. The next presidential election will be very interesting, since I am curious whom the Russians will sponsor next - no doubt some right-wing conservative crook defending the "czech values" from the evil EU and immigrant hordes. The problem is that there is limit on the percent of voters, who are receptive to this type of nationalist propaganda (30% of the population) and there is no one who has comparable charisma to Zeman (he is like Trump in many respects, only much more intelligent and with great verbal skills)


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> So you would also denounce, say, Al Gore, who has gotten vastly wealthy off of his climate change advocacy? Sure, not as much as the Kochs, but then he also doesn't provide goods that people want to buy.
> 
> And you also don't like how much money Tom Steyer, currently running for president, has spent to further his political goals?
> 
> Or Michael Bloomberg in the 2018 cycle, in addition to all the money he puts into the gun control movement?
> 
> Donald Sussman, a billionaire hedge fund manager, who donated $20 million in the 2018 cycle to elect Democrats?
> 
> This is how much Koch Industries donated to candidates in 2018:
> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=d000000186
> 
> Or here you go, the list of top donors and how much they gave and who they donated to - go ahead and denounce all those liberals:
> https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php


Al Gore? Makes an income off of books and/or speaking fees, it's honest work.

Koch industries does not make their presence felt through direct donation to candidates, so it doesn't show up on that chart. They have created a political network that is reported to have spend almost $900 million during the 2016 election cycle working to elect libertarian candidates.

I don't think anyone, on either side of the spectrum, should be allowed to spend unlimited sums of money to elect candidates. But until the laws are changed the best that can be hoped for is some sort of parity between spending on the left and on the right. But I think is fair to point out that, unlike the Koch brothers, Michael Bloomberg was not advocating for government policies that would enrich himself personally.


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> Al Gore? Makes an income off of books and/or speaking fees, it's honest work.
> 
> Koch industries does not make their presence felt through direct donation to candidates, so it doesn't show up on that chart. They have created a political network that is reported to have spend almost $900 million during the 2016 election cycle working to elect libertarian candidates.
> 
> I don't think anyone, on either side of the spectrum, should be allowed to spend unlimited sums of money to elect candidates. But until the laws are changed the best that can be hoped for is some sort of parity between spending on the left and on the right. But I think is fair to point out that, unlike the Koch brothers, Michael Bloomberg was not advocating for government policies that would enrich himself personally.


Got it. You rationalize when it suits your needs. 
Check your facts. Al Gore made money from companies that sold carbon offsets. Then look at who he sold his TV station to.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Got it. You rationalize when it suits your needs.
> Check your facts. Al Gore made money from companies that sold carbon offsets. Then look at who he sold his TV station to.


Imagine an America where Al Gore was elected president rather than George W. Bush. Iraq war? Clinton surpluses continued? Great Recession? How about a Robert Kennedy presidency? There is a difference between the parties--one encourages the rise of an Al Gore, another a Donald Trump, a Mitch McConnell, a Scott Pruitt.....


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> Got it. You rationalize when it suits your needs.
> Check your facts. Al Gore made money from companies that sold carbon offsets. Then look at who he sold his TV station to.


Huh? I spend about 1 second per year thinking about Al Gore. But now that you mention it, Al Gore talks about how sustainable energy is good, and he invests in sustainable energy, and there is something wrong with that? Tim Cook owns stock in Apple and he tells people to buy an iPhone, that is wrong?

Is it possible for you to type one sentence without accusing me of some form of hypocrisy or disingenuousness? Do you know how incredibly unpleasant it is to have any interaction with you at all?

From this point forward, I will not respond to anything you type on this board.


----------



## Guest

It is as simple as this. Wealthy people spend their money to advocate for what they want and believe. On the left and right. As soon as I hear similar denunciations of Steyer and Soros as for the Koch's, I will believe you have a principled objection, rather than just a partisan political objection.


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> Huh? I spend about 1 second per year thinking about Al Gore. But now that you mention it, Al Gore talks about how sustainable energy is good, and he invests in sustainable energy, and there is something wrong with that? Tim Cook owns stock in Apple and he tells people to buy an iPhone, that is wrong?
> 
> Is it possible for you to type one sentence without accusing me of some form of hypocrisy or disingenuousness? Do you know how incredibly unpleasant it is to have any interaction with you at all?
> 
> *From this point forward, I will not respond to anything you type on this board*.


Promise? I'll hold you to it.


----------



## Guest

So this no longer seems to be about philanthropy. It is now about evil right wingers daring to fund things they believe in, and, bizarrely, whether Central/Eastern European leaders are evil, corrupt, and/or puppets of Putin.

I'll now out until it goes back to discussing philanthropy.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> It is as simple as this. Wealthy people spend their money to advocate for what they want and believe. On the left and right. As soon as I hear similar denunciations of Steyer and Soros as for the Koch's, I will believe you have a principled objection, rather than just a partisan political objection.


Baron Scarpia



> I don't think anyone, on either side of the spectrum, should be allowed to spend unlimited sums of money to elect candidates.


And this has been stated before in this thread.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> It is as simple as this. Wealthy people spend their money to advocate for what they want and believe. On the left and right. As soon as I hear similar denunciations of Steyer and Soros as for the Koch's, I will believe you have a principled objection, rather than just a partisan political objection.


Some, though, know the difference between Right and Wrong. Steyer and Soros are Right (=Good, Correct); The Kochs are--and support--the Wrong. Quite simple, really. It's about what the spending hopes to buy.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Promise? I'll hold you to it.


Well, what have we here????


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Baron Scarpia
> 
> And this has been stated before in this thread.


Sure, lip service is paid to it, and then you get all the carve out exceptions - well, you know, Mike Bloomberg isn't really looking for personal benefit when he donates to all those Democrats, or whatever else gets said.

What all this has to do with philanthropic giving, I have no idea. Apparently so many on here can't get past their hatred of the Kochs to simply state that the money they gave to cancer research and the arts is a good thing, regardless of any of their other politically motivated giving. Is that really so hard? Instead, we get long diatribes about how evil they are and how this giving can't erase the evil they do, blah, blah, blah.

This is the way of the world - your political opponents can only be viewed in black and white, while your own side is given every benefit of the doubt of their altruistic nature.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^I for one am happy--delighted--to say that the Koch Bros. spending on genuine philanthropy is a Good Thing. The Good Doctor, however, for reasons both he and I are familiar with, has chosen to "Ignore" my repeated posts on the subject and upon the nuanced views of Oscar Wilde (for instance) on the subject of philanthropic giving. The Doctor is a firm believer in the bliss-inducing aspects of sealing oneself off from the views of Troublesome Others, though, and thus erroneously cries out in the darkness for that agreement I can and have provided.


----------



## Jacck

I am not too familiar with the Kochs, but from what I am reading now, it looks like they produced a lot of toxic pollution (which caused cancer), and then funded research to fight cancer. 
Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire


----------



## Jacck

DrMike said:


> So this no longer seems to be about philanthropy. It is now about evil right wingers daring to fund things they believe in, and, bizarrely, whether Central/Eastern European leaders are evil, corrupt, and/or puppets of Putin.
> 
> I'll now out until it goes back to discussing philanthropy.


I do not think that the majority of right-wingers are evil. But you are blissfully unaware of the true nature of the Russian regime and the threat that it presents to the world
https://en.delfi.lt/politics/putins...lin-and-international-terrorism.d?id=66687172
https://en.delfi.lt/politics/putins...date-back-to-kgb-under-andropov.d?id=66748856
basically, the collapse of the USSR was just an outward trick to fool the world, the power structure and also the people stayed the same.


----------



## CnC Bartok

DrMike said:


> So this no longer seems to be about philanthropy. It is now about evil right wingers daring to fund things they believe in, and, bizarrely, whether Central/Eastern European leaders are evil, corrupt, and/or puppets of Putin.
> 
> I'll now out until it goes back to discussing philanthropy.


Nothing wrong with my digression into the centre of Europe. The attitude towards George Soros and his University is a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss here, I'd have thought? And if sweet uncle Vladimir in the Kremlin is suspected of being part of his vilification, isn't that worth noting at the very least?


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> I am not too familiar with the Kochs, but from what I am reading now, it looks like they produced a lot of toxic pollution (which caused cancer), and then funded research to fight cancer.
> Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire


Rolling Stone has long been known for their fair and impartial reporting (insert sarcastic chortle). Look, if you look in notoriously left-wing publications, you are going to get left-wing viewpoints. Lest we forget, this is the publication that published the fraudulent report of campus rape a couple of years ago. Go read some balanced reporting and then form your opinion.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> I do not think that the majority of right-wingers are evil. But you are blissfully unaware of the true nature of the Russian regime and the threat that it presents to the world
> https://en.delfi.lt/politics/putins...lin-and-international-terrorism.d?id=66687172
> https://en.delfi.lt/politics/putins...date-back-to-kgb-under-andropov.d?id=66748856
> basically, the collapse of the USSR was just an outward trick to fool the world, the power structure and also the people stayed the same.


Oh, I think we are more aware of the true nature of the Russian regime than you give us credit for.


----------



## Guest

CnC Bartok said:


> Nothing wrong with my digression into the centre of Europe. The attitude towards George Soros and his University is a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss here, I'd have thought? And if sweet uncle Vladimir in the Kremlin is suspected of being part of his vilification, isn't that worth noting at the very least?


I think that most of the criticism of Soros on the right is directly analogous to the criticism of the Kochs on the left - he is a very wealthy individual who pours a LOT of money into Democratic candidates and liberal causes that conservatives don't like. If it were an anti-semitic thing, that sure wouldn't explain then why you have Adelson donating on the right and the right liking it.


----------



## starthrower

So we can all agree the Koch's poured millions of dollars in to causes they believed in. And one of those included the idea of buying politicians to look the other way while their companies polluted the environment and made people sick. They believe they ought to be able to do this with impunity because that's the libertarian way. And they are so proud of this that it was mostly accomplished through dark money channels.

And just for the record, I have not defended or made excuses for any super rich Democratic supporters who think they can play wizard of the universe by purchasing all the influence money can buy. It should be illegal.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> *So we can all agree the Koch's poured millions of dollars in to causes they believed in. And one of those included the idea of buying politicians to look the other way while their companies polluted the environment and made people sick. They believe they ought to be able to do this with impunity because that's the libertarian way. And they are so proud of this that it was mostly accomplished through dark money channels.*
> 
> And just for the record, I have not defended or made excuses for any super rich Democratic supporters who think they can play wizard of the universe by purchasing all the influence money can buy. It should be illegal.


Well that sounds like a perfectly fair assessment of them . . . it truly is a wonder that I'm not in full agreement with you and your honestly balanced judgment.

Hey, if you want me to trust your sincerity, rather than just saying you don't want Democratic supporters to also dump lots of money into politics, why don't you also look at all their political and professional activities with as jaundiced an eye as you give to the Kochs. You'll forgive me if I choose to not hold my breath.


----------



## Bulldog

I'd just like to insert my opinion that both the Republican and Democratic parties are toxic and damaging the country.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> I'd just like to insert my opinion that both the Republican and Democratic parties are toxic and damaging the country.


I mostly agree, but would fine tune it and say extreme tribalism is toxic and damaging the country, from both sides.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> Well that sounds like a perfectly fair assessment of them . . . it truly is a wonder that I'm not in full agreement with you and your honestly balanced judgment.
> 
> Hey, if you want me to trust your sincerity, rather than just saying you don't want Democratic supporters to also dump lots of money into politics, why don't you also look at all their political and professional activities with as jaundiced an eye as you give to the Kochs. You'll forgive me if I choose to not hold my breath.


Fine with me because it's not about Dems vs republicans. It's about right and wrong. I don't care who it is. The Koch's, Don Blankenship, Flint Michigan, Love Canal, Pinto gas tanks exploding or whatever. You're also making the assumption that I'm a purely Democratic supporter because I've disagreed with you on some issues.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Fine with me because it's not about Dems vs republicans. It's about right and wrong. I don't care who it is. The Koch's, Don Blankenship, Flint Michigan, Love Canal, Pinto gas tanks exploding or whatever. You're also making the assumption that I'm a purely Democratic supporter because I've disagreed with you on some issues.


That's the point of this place - everybody makes a lot of assumptions about everybody else.


----------



## starthrower

It can happen. And of course we all know people are muti-dimentional and there's a lot more to a person than their viewpoint on a contentious topic or two.


----------



## Strange Magic

Bulldog said:


> I'd just like to insert my opinion that both the Republican and Democratic parties are toxic and damaging the country.


I of course disagree with this. The former Republican Party is now the Party of Donald Trump with the support of 80% of "Republicans", though there is growing nausea being exhibited from both what's left of the White Shoe "moderate" wing--what's left of it--and also those real conservatives who still have some respect for integrity and truth. But one must become familiar with American political history in some detail in order to fully appreciate just how far the Republican Party has fallen from its former place as a respected voice of responsible and humane capitalism. It is now a dog's breakfast of various sorts of crazies, greedheads, bigots, plutocrats, and worshipful adorers of Trump as a god. Such a fall--unparalleled in American history.


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> I of course disagree with this. The former Republican Party is now the Party of Donald Trump with the support of 80% of "Republicans", though there is growing nausea being exhibited from both what's left of the White Shoe "moderate" wing--what's left of it--and also those real conservatives who still have some respect for integrity and truth. But one must become familiar with American political history in some detail in order to fully appreciate just how far the Republican Party has fallen from its former place as a respected voice of responsible and humane capitalism. It is now a dog's breakfast of various sorts of crazies, greedheads, bigots, plutocrats, and worshipful adorers of Trump as a god. Such a fall--unparalleled in American history.


but the left has degenerated too, obsessed with political correctness, newspeak, identity politics etc. Ultimately, the most important thing is moral integrity. Someone without moral integrity cannot distinguish between right and wrong. And as the KGB defector Bezmenov describes in the video I posted before, the first step in subverting a nation is demoralization.


----------



## Strange Magic

> *"Conservative Jerry Taylor said Wednesday on "Rising" that the Republican Party under President Trump is not in a "healthy place," warning that it could turn into the party of "blood, soil and nationalism" if it doesn't change its course.
> 
> "If the Republican Party continues down this current path, it is going to become the Le Pen party - party of blood and soil and nationalism that we see in Europe, and I think that's an existential threat to the country," Taylor told Hill.TV, referring to Marine Le Pen, the president of France's National Rally party, which was previously known as the National Front.
> 
> "A healthy United States of America needs two healthy political parties, and right now, the Republican Party is not in a healthy place and that's why I stay in the party and I stay to fight," he continued.*
> 
> Taylor is the president of the Niskanen Center, a moderate think tank that grew out of the libertarian Cato Institute.
> 
> The Republican is also one of the leaders of a small group of "Never Trump" conservatives, who frequently appear on cable news to advocate against Trump's presidency.
> 
> Taylor and the Niskanen Center will be hosting a conference next Tuesday to urge the GOP to "reset" from Trump and present ideas for a "post-Trump Republican Party."
> 
> The newly reelected Republican governor of Maryland, Larry Hogan, is poised to give the opening address at the event.
> 
> At the conference, Taylor hopes conservatives can come together and forge a new Republican Party rather than returning to the ideals of the old. He hopes, among other issues, the Republican base as a whole will works towards embracing more social justice initiatives.
> 
> "I think we're trying to forge something new … that's what this conference is hoping to do, to bring together opponents of Trump to not just talk about what they don't like but to unite around what do they agree [on] and what kind of positive vision they have not only for the GOP but for the country itself," he said.
> 
> Taylor still remains hopeful about the future of the Republican party, citing that throughout history, political parties have always been "in movement and in flux."


From The Hill:

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/419826-never-trump-conservative-calls-gop-existential-threat-to-us

Just another example of the growing cadre of real conservatives becoming increasingly worried by the current drift of the Trump Party. Our Central European posters will recognize the growing trend.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> but the left has degenerated too, obsessed with political correctness, newspeak, identity politics etc. Ultimately, the most important thing is moral integrity. Someone without moral integrity cannot distinguish between right and wrong. And as the KGB defector Bezmenov describes in the video I posted before, the first step in subverting a nation is demoralization.


You've nailed it. The Democrats and their supporters still fail to understand this was the reason behind the election of Trump. He functioned as chemotherapy to rid the people of these things you describe - the cancer on the polity; the "ship of fools" as described in a book I'm reading. And who, in their right mind, would want chemotherapy unless they *had *to have it? The culture wars started by the left have lead to this. And unless they learn the lessons of 2016 it will be repeated next year. In a 'war' you always choose the bigger weapon!! Mixed metaphors, but there you are.


----------



## starthrower

Jacck said:


> but the left has degenerated too, obsessed with political correctness, newspeak, identity politics etc. Ultimately, the most important thing is moral integrity. Someone without moral integrity cannot distinguish between right and wrong.


The first step towards redemption is for both parties to agree that Trump has to go. He continues to be an advocate of a dangerous opponent in Putin, and he's on Twitter complaining that Fox News isn't doing a good enough job as the propaganda arm for his administration. The guy needs to be taken to the loony bin.


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> but the left has degenerated too, obsessed with political correctness, newspeak, identity politics etc. Ultimately, the most important thing is moral integrity. Someone without moral integrity cannot distinguish between right and wrong. And as the KGB defector Bezmenov describes in the video I posted before, the first step in subverting a nation is demoralization.


In the assemblage of threats facing open, "liberal" societies, political correctness ranks as somewhat less dangerous than the constant compulsive lying that emanates from the Trump administration. And the Democrats have no monopoly on identity politics. Trump has even gotten most of the morals-obsessed, mostly all-white evangelical community to excuse and explain and ignore all of his decades of corrupt, boorish behavior, and now to regard him as being ''sent by God". The mind boggles.


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> You've nailed it. The Democrats and their supporters still fail to understand this was the reason behind the election of Trump. He functioned as chemotherapy to rid the people of these things you describe - the cancer on the polity; the "ship of fools" as described in a book I'm reading. And who, in their right mind, would want chemotherapy unless they *had *to have it? The culture wars started by the left have lead to this. And unless they learn the lessons of 2016 it will be repeated next year. In a 'war' you always choose the bigger weapon!! Mixed metaphors, but there you are.


A truly amazing post!!

P.S. Lest we forget, Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million.


----------



## Bulldog

starthrower said:


> The first step towards redemption is for both parties to agree that Trump has to go.


Yes, and that's a great first step. Next is to eliminate both of the major political parties. With those three toxic elements out the way, there's a chance for the United States to take a major step toward redemption.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> Yes, and that's a great first step. Next is to eliminate both of the major political parties. With those three toxic elements out the way, there's a chance for the United States to take a major step toward redemption.


Apropos the loss of the "popular vote" and Trump; your system has always worked that way, according to my understanding. We have the same here in Australia.

The step towards 'redemption' is a good idea, as long as the Democrats realize they need to return to core business - which is taking care of the American (growing) working classes and not pandering to inner urban elites and their precious ideologies. As I said in my original post, the cancer has grown out of control in the USA because of the culture wars and has metastasized through the institutions, particularly universities. The 'cure' for this is and was always going to be unpalatable. And toxic.

You need to be strong in the USA because of the growth of China - which doesn't have a democracy it has to be accountable to. I've long believed that China's problems will come from within and this is understood by the leadership - ergo, they have to create outside distractions to avert the gaze of the citizenry upon themselves. All this makes a strong and determined America necessary and I believe you can do it. You've only got to believe in YOURSELVES. Hatred plays no part in this.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Strange Magic said:


> A truly amazing post!!
> 
> P.S. Lest we forget, Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million.


Pop vote doesn't matter. Some are predicting he could lose by more than 3 million pop votes in 2020 and still win electoral college vote.


----------



## Strange Magic

When the Trump Party quits pandering to nativists, white supremacists, anti-LGBT bigots, gun psychotics and the NRA, conspiracy theorists, theocracy zealots, and the rich and hyper rich, stops the endless stream of lies, and stops declaring the Press "the enemy of the people", we might begin the healing process. But the surest path forward is to drive this rancid, toxic crowd out of office at the polls. Real conservatives are eager to get started, with an unassailable conservative commentator George Will joining others of similar integrity in urging the cleansing of the Republican Party of the putrid cancer of Trump and Trumpism.


----------



## Strange Magic

Bulldog said:


> Yes, and that's a great first step. Next is to eliminate both of the major political parties. With those three toxic elements out the way, there's a chance for the United States to take a major step toward redemption.


I thought I was a dreamer, but your dreams are purest fantasy. But "Trump has to go" is indeed a great and essential first step.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Strange Magic said:


> I thought I was a dreamer, but your dreams are purest fantasy. But "Trump has to go" is indeed a great and essential first step.


There is no democrat I can vote for.


----------



## KenOC

This thread has devolved into a series of purely political rants. Please address your comments to the original topic matter or else the thread will be closed and all the sinners thereon will be subject to immediate liquidation.

BTW, Mitt Romney 2020.


----------



## Bulldog

Johnnie Burgess said:


> There is no democrat I can vote for.


Although I'm a registered libertarian, I'll vote for any democrat to get rid of Trump. Also, I consider a few of them to be of relatively high quality.


----------



## Bulldog

Strange Magic said:


> I thought I was a dreamer, but your dreams are purest fantasy.


Are political parties a necessity?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Bulldog said:


> Are political parties a necessity?


How would you get rid of them.


----------



## Bulldog

Johnnie Burgess said:


> How would you get rid of them.


New laws and stiff criminal penalties. A constitutional amendment would be a must. Yes, I know it's pie in the sky, but it's still the best way to govern a country.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Bulldog said:


> New laws and stiff criminal penalties. A constitutional amendment would be a must. Yes, I know it's pie in the sky, but it's still the best way to govern a country.


You do know how hard it is to get a constitutional amendment appoved?


----------



## Bulldog

Johnnie Burgess said:


> You do know how hard it is to get a constitutional amendment appoved?


Yes, that's why there aren't very many.


----------



## KenOC

I don't think you could draft an amendment that would prevent people from banding together to achieve common political goals. In fact, if you think about it, I don't believe you'd even want to try.


----------



## Bulldog

KenOC said:


> I don't think you could draft an amendment that would prevent people from banding together to achieve common political goals. In fact, if you think about it, I don't believe you'd even want to try.


I don't have a problem with people joining together as an advocacy group for various policies/programs/causes.


----------



## KenOC

Bulldog said:


> I don't have a problem with people joining together as an advocacy group for various policies/programs/causes.


Seems to me that's what a political party is. If not that, then what? What is it *exactly* that people want to outlaw?


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> I don't have a problem with people joining together as an advocacy group for various policies/programs/causes.


Yeah, I think that is the definition of a political party. As a libertarian, I'm surprised you would want to do something that would be so obviously a violation of the First Amendment.


----------



## Jacck

from what I know about libertarianism, it is akin to communism in the sense that it is an utopia, that goes against basic human nature. I do not know much about the US libertarianism, but I did some study of Hayek, Mises and Rothbard. (the Austrian economic school). It all sounds nice in theory, but it is completely impracticable. But Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" is a good book, worth reading.


----------



## starthrower

Libertarianism will never be adopted in the United States. Politicians get re-elected doling out government pork.


----------



## Jacck

Christabel said:


> Apropos the loss of the "popular vote" and Trump; your system has always worked that way, according to my understanding. We have the same here in Australia.
> 
> The step towards 'redemption' is a good idea, as long as the Democrats realize they need to return to core business - which is taking care of the American (growing) working classes and not pandering to inner urban elites and their precious ideologies. As I said in my original post, the cancer has grown out of control in the USA because of the culture wars and has metastasized through the institutions, particularly universities. The 'cure' for this is and was always going to be unpalatable. And toxic.
> 
> You need to be strong in the USA because of the growth of China - which doesn't have a democracy it has to be accountable to. I've long believed that China's problems will come from within and this is understood by the leadership - ergo, they have to create outside distractions to avert the gaze of the citizenry upon themselves. All this makes a strong and determined America necessary and I believe you can do it. You've only got to believe in YOURSELVES. Hatred plays no part in this.


yes, the left-wing progressivism at the universities is the source of this. 
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=13615
they probably compete, who can come up with a bigger progressive BS. Physics is physics, it is neither black, or white, or yellow, and either you are up to it or no. This idiocy at the campuses combined with some crazy stuff like this
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49492992
will lead to the fact, that the US will no longer be an attractive country to go to study or do science. And the majority of the scientific slave labor in US science is done by foreign students. 
https://blog.ucsusa.org/josh-goldman/why-immigrants-are-vital-to-science-in-the-u-s
they should really do some purge and throw all these "diversity commisars" and similar politruks out of the universities. They contribute nothing of value to science


----------



## Strange Magic

> Christabel: "The step towards 'redemption' is a good idea, as long as the Democrats realize they need to return to core business - which is taking care of the American (growing) working classes and not pandering to inner urban elites and their precious ideologies. As I said in my original post, the cancer has grown out of control in the USA because of the culture wars and has metastasized through the institutions, particularly universities. The 'cure' for this is and was always going to be unpalatable. And toxic.


First, I and other Americans look with interest upon how Australia attempts to cope with its attitudes toward its aboriginal people and its constantly growing influx of migrants from radically different cultures. We will look to you for guidance.

Second, from your distant viewpoint, please tell us what these "precious ideologies" of the inner urban elites are, that are just so wrong and destructive.

Third, I agree completely with your assessment that Democrats since FDR and even sporadically earlier are the people most closely concerned with the American working classes--even a cursory familiarity with political, social, and labor history will know this. But the train lurches off the track when you blame those ''inner urban elites and their precious ideologues" for either the party's loss in 2016 that brought us the diseased boy Trump despite the 3 million vote plurality of Clinton, and also the popular vote loser George Bush in 2000. There are deeper issues at work here, including reform of the electoral college to guarantee real democracy and equality of vote. Also, the "Republican" Party itself, a seething hotbed of toxic ideology, needs to re-examine both what it believes and whether its obsession with relying upon the unholy mix of gun psychotics, haters, religious fanatics, racists, and plutocrats for clinging to power will ultimately either bring it down or lead to an American fascism. Anyone now familiar with Donald Trump now must know that the troubles of the working class are of no interest to him; rather it is the prejudices and resentments of the white mostly male rust belt and southern working classes that he uses as fuel for his growing egomania, arbitrariness, and irrationality. Trump is too much the narcissist, too lazy, and too unintelligent to become more than a pale Mussolini, but others will follow his lead who are made of sterner stuff. It is he who is the cancer.


----------



## Room2201974

Jacck said:


> yes, the left-wing progressivism at the universities is the source of this.
> https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=13615
> they probably compete, who can come up with a bigger progressive BS. Physics is physics, it is neither black, or white, or yellow, and either you are up to it or no.


Stanford, a major university. I'd bet their college catalog shows hundreds and hundreds of classes. So one class has got the culture warriors shaking in their boots. The course in question is a survey course equivalent to an elective in gen ed (of which a student can choose many) and is NOT used as a degree requirement within the B S in Physics. And its one freaking credit hour. What we have here is opinion masquerading as a news story, written by a "newsperson" who is still trying to get that degree in Journalism after 7 years of trying.

Anyone can make a website and "publish" rubish. Anyone can call themselves an "investigative reporter" without creditentials. And people will fall for their bs hook, line, and sinker! Wait, wait, I can see it now, the headline for the next story that will be "published" any day now:

"Despite claims of diversity, the Stanford physics department still only teaches about 'black' holes. ":lol:


----------



## Jacck

Room2201974 said:


> Stanford, a major university. I'd bet their college catalog shows hundreds and hundreds of classes. So one class has got the culture warriors shaking in their boots. The course in question is a survey course equivalent to an elective in gen ed (of which a student can choose many) and is NOT used as a degree requirement within the B S in Physics. And its one freaking credit hour. What we have here is opinion masquerading as a news story, written by a "newsperson" who is still trying to get that degree in Journalism after 7 years of trying.
> 
> Anyone can make a website and "publish" rubish. Anyone can call themselves an "investigative reporter" without creditentials. And people will fall for their bs hook, line, and sinker! Wait, wait, I can see it now, the headline for the next story that will be "published" any day now:
> 
> "Despite claims of diversity, the Stanford physics department still only teaches about 'black' holes. ":lol:


there are also red giants, brown dwarfs and white dwarfs. And these are all stars. Only holes are black. To associate holes with Afroamerican minority is deeply offensive and is a sign of the while male supremacist racist patriarchy  (just kidding, I have nothing against the blacks and think they make some awesome music)
This diversity and inclusion thing is certainly no fringe thing, since every job applicant is required to supply a "diversity statement"
https://physicalsciences.ucsd.edu/_files/examples-submitted-diversity-statements.pdf
this basically means that you getting a university job or not is now basically coupled with your political views, ie if they are sufficiently compliant with the official "diversity and inclusion" doctrine. You are not allowed to have a different opinion, since that would preclude you from getting the job. I reminds me of communism
How Identity Politics Is Harming the Sciences
this cancer started within the social siences (black studies, gender studies etc) and now it is spreading to the natural sciences.


----------



## Strange Magic

From the CampusReform article:



> Stanford's alternate version of this course, Physics 41E, boasts additional class time, as well as "learning assistants," individuals with a "passion" for "education equity," who are paid by the university to guide students through the difficult course.


Is this a bad thing? Why?



> The university says this modified course helps to increase diversity in the field because "students from underrepresented groups often don't have the same level of preparation from high school as their majority peers."


Is this a bad thing? Why?



> The difference in preparation is large enough that it may lead students to drop out of the major but small enough that the kind of support offered by this course can be enough to keep them in," Stanford says.


Is this a bad thing? Why?



> The Stanford College Republicans told Campus Reform that the group finds "the creation of special curricula and support services for ethnic minority groups and women to be textbook examples of unequal treatment."


Is this a bad thing? Why?

There is no suggestion by Stamford that minorities will be taught an "alternative" physics itself. The suggestion is intentionally planted within the CampusReform article by its authors.

A reading of American history, especially of the utter collapse of Reconstruction after the Civil War leading to the KKK, Jim Crow, lynching, and the wholesale de facto relegation of African Americans to third-class citizenship, will convince the fair-minded that centuries of slavery and repression need to be ameliorated. The resentment of the bystanders on the outside betrays either ignorance of US history or a disturbing deep-rooted cynicism.


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> From the CampusReform article:
> Is this a bad thing? Why?
> Is this a bad thing? Why?
> Is this a bad thing? Why?
> Is this a bad thing? Why?
> There is no suggestion by Stamford that minorities will be taught an "alternative" physics itself. The suggestion is intentionally planted within the CampusReform article by its authors.
> A reading of American history, especially of the utter collapse of Reconstruction after the Civil War leading to the KKK, Jim Crow, lynching, and the wholesale de facto relegation of African Americans to third-class citizenship, will convince the fair-minded that centuries of slavery and repression need to be ameliorated. The resentment of the bystanders on the outside betrays either ignorance of US history or a disturbing deep-rooted cynicism.


if they really want to help the underprivileged minorities, then they should go to the ghettos and help them there, at the primary school and high school level. University should not lower its bars, so that the underprivileged could meet them, but rather the underprivileged should rise to meet them. You can either encourage excellence by attracting the best and the brightest, and then you will not lower the bar. Or you can cripple the best and the excellent, so that the average could catch up with them.


----------



## Strange Magic

Interesting article on the status of the Roma in Czechoslovakia. Perhaps there is some relevance to the position of some minorities in the US. One difference might be that many of the Roma have no interest in being assimilated into the surrounding culture (see Isabel Fonseca's _Bury Me Standing_), whereas the overwhelming majority of African Americans want to be fully integrated within American society.

https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6a7ea0.html


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> if they really want to help the underprivileged minorities, then they should go to the ghettos and help them there, at the primary school and high school level. University should not lower its bars, so that the underprivileged could meet them, but rather the underprivileged should rise to meet them. You can either encourage excellence by attracting the best and the brightest, and then you will not lower the bar. Or you can cripple the best and the excellent, so that the average could catch up with them.


Is the bar being lowered in the specific Stamford example? I saw no evidence.

Meanwhile, I agree that the real attack should be a top-to-bottom restructuring of housing, education, healthcare, access to goods and services, etc., etc. throughout American society.


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> Is the bar being lowered in the specific Stamford example? I saw no evidence.
> 
> Meanwhile, I agree that the real attack should be a top-to-bottom restructuring of housing, education, healthcare, access to goods and services, etc., etc. throughout American society.


the admissions to US colleges are ratially discriminant to fill some diversity quotas, the Asians filed a lawsuit
https://time.com/5425147/harvard-affirmative-action-trial-asian-american-students/


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> Interesting article on the status of the Roma in Czechoslovakia. Perhaps there is some relevance to the position of some minorities in the US. One difference might be that many of the Roma have no interest in being assimilated into the surrounding culture (see Isabel Fonseca's _Bury Me Standing_), whereas the overwhelming majority of African Americans want to be fully integrated within American society.
> 
> https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6a7ea0.html


the Roma problem was more acute in the 1990's, now the Muslims seem to have taken the role of the scapegoat of the local right-wing xenophobes. But these things are not black and white. The article places all the blame on the majority society, and acknowleges no blame on the part of the minority. The basic supposition, that the Roma are poor, because the majority society discriminates them, is inaccurate. They have historically always survived as nomads, that went from village to village, and stole sheep and chicken or even dogs from the local villages, which certainly did contribute to their very negative public image and subsequent discrimination. Some of them want to integrate and can integrate, the majority just dont.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> from what I know about libertarianism, it is akin to communism in the sense that it is an utopia, that goes against basic human nature. I do not know much about the US libertarianism, but I did some study of Hayek, Mises and Rothbard. (the Austrian economic school). It all sounds nice in theory, but it is completely impracticable. But Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" is a good book, worth reading.


Hayek is great, and yes, everybody SHOULD read "The Road to Serfdom."
As to libertarianism being a utopian ideology, I don't think that is quite true. In fact, in the 19th century, there was a time when the U.S. was much more libertarian, before the institution of the income tax, the massive growth of the federal government and regulation under the Progressives and FDR. No, there has never been a pure libertarian state here, but we started out pretty libertarian - what used to be known as liberal, as in being for the advancement of maximum liberty. Sadly, now, the party that purports to be home to that ideology these days has little power and rarely seems to take itself seriously enough to gain any more. Gary Johnson was rather a poor candidate who seemed uninterested or unknowledgeable about much in the last presidential election, fairly or not. And when they get guys on stage in diapers at their conventions, it really is hard to take them seriously.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> the Roma problem was more acute in the 1990's, now the Muslims seem to have taken the role of the scapegoat of the local right-wing xenophobes. But these things are not black and white. The article places all the blame on the majority society, and acknowleges no blame on the part of the minority. The basic supposition, that the Roma are poor, because the majority society discriminates them, is inaccurate. They have historically always survived as nomads, that went from village to village, and stole sheep and chicken or even dogs from the local villages, which certainly did contribute to their very negative public image and subsequent discrimination. Some of them want to integrate and can integrate, the majority just dont.


I suspect there is still a significant amount of discrimination against the Roma. We just adopted a little girl from Hungary, and I suspect she is Roma - even though Roma comprise a very small percentage of the Hungarian population, they are highly represented in the foster child group, and we were told the vast majority of children up for adoption would be Roma, as ethnic Hungarian children are usually adopted fairly quickly domestically. Most of this is due to the poverty in that community. But these Roma children are very difficult to place with Hungarian families, and are frequently put up for international adoption, as Hungarian families don't want to adopt Roma children.


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> the admissions to US colleges are ratially discriminant to fill some diversity quotas, the Asians filed a lawsuit
> https://time.com/5425147/harvard-affirmative-action-trial-asian-american-students/


The article makes it clear that universities are caught between Scylla and Charybdis when it comes to ''doing the right thing". Perhaps all other groups will file a lawsuit against the Asian-American plaintiffs for clear, overwhelming overrepresention at Harvard and most everywhere else, stifling the opportunities for underrepresented minorities suffering from centuries of oppression and discrimination. No, I think places like Stamford are ''doing the right thing" or the least wrong thing when it comes to dealing with ameliorating past inequities due to racial discrimination. Someone will always complain--you cannot please everyone, but you can choose the "best" path that deals with the worst past sins. Asian-American strength in business and technology leadership is now beyond dispute.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> there are also red giants, brown dwarfs and white dwarfs. And these are all stars. Only holes are black. To associate holes with Afroamerican minority is deeply offensive and is a sign of the while male supremacist racist patriarchy  (just kidding, I have nothing against the blacks and think they make some awesome music)
> This diversity and inclusion thing is certainly no fringe thing, since every job applicant is required to supply a "diversity statement"
> https://physicalsciences.ucsd.edu/_files/examples-submitted-diversity-statements.pdf
> this basically means that you getting a university job or not is now basically coupled with your political views, ie if they are sufficiently compliant with the official "diversity and inclusion" doctrine. You are not allowed to have a different opinion, since that would preclude you from getting the job. I reminds me of communism
> How Identity Politics Is Harming the Sciences
> this cancer started within the social siences (black studies, gender studies etc) and now it is spreading to the natural sciences.


Universities are a great subtopic for this discussion - so many of the great universities in this country started out through philanthropic endeavors. And even those public institutions receive massive donations from wealthy individuals. I realize that sometimes this isn't necessarily purely altruistic - sometimes when you have that much extra money, you just want to see your name on a building, or have an endowed chair bearing your name. Here at my university, we had a building for a time named after Richard Scrushy, the convicted head of the former Health South. Most suspected that some of his latter massive donations were to buy some good will before going to trial, and he even had a great "come to Jesus" moment, hosting a Sunday morning Christian discussion show - again, it really felt like a cynical ploy to buy some public good will before facing a jury. But then once convicted, his name quickly came off of the building. Now there is barely a sign of him at all in this town.

Up in Columbus, Ohio, there are many buildings, especially at Nationwide Children's Hospital, that bear the name "Wexner" thanks to the philanthropy of the local Wexner family, of the Limited Brands, which include companies such as Victoria's Secret, the Limited Too, and various other stores that are fairly ubiquitous at most malls. Their funding helped build the research building I worked in up there.


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> The article makes it clear that universities are caught between Scylla and Charybdis when it comes to ''doing the right thing". Perhaps all other groups will file a lawsuit against the Asian-American plaintiffs for clear, overwhelming overrepresention at Harvard and most everywhere else, stifling the opportunities for underrepresented minorities suffering from centuries of oppression and discrimination. No, I think places like Stamford are ''doing the right thing" or the least wrong thing when it comes to dealing with ameliorating past inequities due to racial discrimination. Someone will always complain--you cannot please everyone, but you can choose the "best" path that deals with the worst past sins. Asian-American strength in business and technology leadership is now beyond dispute.


I don't think that "past inequities" and some supposed historical guilt, that the white majority feels towards the black minority, should play any role in higher education. It should be about science and nothing else. The university admissions should be done in a blind manner, ie all the applicants get some tests, and the evaluation of the tests will be done blindly, and those with the highest scores irrespective of their gender or race should be admitted. This is the only right and just way, that offers the same opportunities to everybody. Everything else priviliges one group, which automatically means that it discriminates another. But the academia in the US seems to be so obssessed with diversity and inclusion ideology, that it cannot think clearly any longer. Even to talk about these things is politically incorrect, because you will be labeled as a racist, misogynist etc. It all became toxic, because the whole identity politics per se is toxic and discriminatory.


----------



## Jacck

DrMike said:


> I suspect there is still a significant amount of discrimination against the Roma. We just adopted a little girl from Hungary, and I suspect she is Roma - even though Roma comprise a very small percentage of the Hungarian population, they are highly represented in the foster child group, and we were told the vast minority of children up for adoption would be Roma, as ethnic Hungarian children are usually adopted fairly quickly domestically. Most of this is due to the poverty in that community. But these Roma children are very difficult to place with Hungarian families, and are frequently put up for international adoption, as Hungarian families don't want to adopt Roma children.


It is likely very similar in Czech Republic. The Roma have a much higher crime rate, much higher poverty, much higher unemployment, much higher rate of child abuse neglect, much higher rate of domestic violence, and the children need to be taken by the social workers from them and placed in foster homes. And Czech families prefer white children for adoption.


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> I don't think that "past inequities" and some supposed historical guilt, that the white majority feels towards the black minority, should play any role in higher education. It should be about science and nothing else. The university admissions should be done in a blind manner, ie all the applicants get some tests, and the evaluation of the tests will be done blindly, and those with the highest scores irrespective of their gender or race should be admitted. This is the only right and just way, that offers the same opportunities to everybody. Everything else priviliges one group, which automatically means that it discriminates another. But the academia in the US seems to be so obssessed with diversity and inclusion ideology, that it cannot think clearly any longer. Even to talk about these things is politically incorrect, because you will be labeled as a racist, misogynist etc. It all became toxic, because the whole identity politics per se is toxic and discriminatory.


We do not live in an ideal world. Here in the USA we live in a very complex world of many diverse groups and also the detritus of past centuries of dysfunctional social and ethnic "equality". While I agree (to repeat) that a wholesale restructuring of American society, attitudes, and institutions will ultimately be necessary to heal all wounds and inequities, meanwhile--without vitiating the content or rigor of coursework in the sciences--places should be reserved for disadvantaged groups in admission to universities. Again, a good working knowledge of the American past is essential to understanding how we got here and what is to be done.


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> We do not live in an ideal world. Here in the USA we live in a very complex world of many diverse groups and also the detritus of past centuries of dysfunctional social and ethnic "equality". While I agree (to repeat) that a wholesale restructuring of American society, attitudes, and institutions will ultimately be necessary to heal all wounds and inequities, meanwhile--without vitiating the content or rigor of coursework in the sciences--places should be reserved for disadvantaged groups in admission to universities. Again, a good working knowledge of the American past is essential to understanding how we got here and what is to be done.


and we central europeans are looked upon as backwards and xenophobic, because we do not want a multicultural society  People observe all these problems of multiculturalism in the supposedly more progressive western societies - the failed integrations of muslims in western europe, still prevalent racial problems in the US, clashes between religious groups, tendency of minority groups to form isolated communities etc. And people do not want it. Hence muslim immigration is such a strong theme in Czech politics, which the Russians can skillfully exploit in their propaganda.


----------



## KenOC

Strange Magic said:


> The article makes it clear that universities are caught between Scylla and Charybdis when it comes to ''doing the right thing". Perhaps all other groups will file a lawsuit against the Asian-American plaintiffs for clear, overwhelming overrepresention at Harvard and most everywhere else, stifling the opportunities for underrepresented minorities...


I don't think Asians are "over-represented" at top colleges. In the Harvard suit, the Plaintiff claimed that to have the same chance of admission as a black, an Asian would need SAT scores 200 points higher. To my knowledge, this was never denied. Harvard's testimony seemed to be, "Well, it's complicated."

Closer to home, I have been told that if admissions were strictly on merit, the University of California at Berkeley would be 80% Asian. Of course, it's not.


----------



## wkasimer

Strange Magic said:


> From the CampusReform article:
> 
> Is this a bad thing? Why?


It depends - the devil is in the details. If enrollment in the alternative Physics course is limited to members of "underrepresented minorities", it is indeed a bad thing. People may be part of various identity groups, but they are also individuals - and there are members of non-underrepresented groups that face similar challenges, and may need the additional support to fulfill their academic goals.


----------



## Guest

wkasimer said:


> It depends - the devil is in the details. If enrollment in the alternative Physics course is limited to members of "underrepresented minorities", it is indeed a bad thing. People may be part of various identity groups, but they are also individuals - and there are members of non-underrepresented groups that face similar challenges, and may need the additional support to fulfill their academic goals.


Fully agree. Why would anybody think that teaching alternative science is a good thing? How would that help anybody in the real world? Will employers now have to scrutinize the course selections of potential employees to make sure they got the right kind of courses? And what good does it to teach a person some dumbed-down version of a course? Or some "culturally sensitive" version? That then gives the individual an artificially inflated sense of their abilities. Sending them out into the real world without a real notion of just what they are capable of - because they weren't taught the real stuff - is setting them up for disaster.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I don't think Asians are "over-represented" at top colleges. In the Harvard suit, the Plaintiff claimed that to have the same chance of admission as a black, an Asian would need SAT scores 200 points higher. To my knowledge, this was never denied. Harvard's testimony seemed to be, "Well, it's complicated."
> 
> Closer to home, I have been told that if admissions were strictly on merit, the University of California at Berkeley would be 80% Asian. Of course, it's not.


The bigger problem is that all of this tends to only treat the patient after they are terminal. Not trying to level the field until they are off to college is too late. More effort needs to be put into grade school, more reforms. More opportunities for kids to get out of failing schools, more accountability for failing schools, more real reforms, beyond simply throwing more money at the problem. But the solution of sending a high school grad to a college or university that really is above their abilities is a bad idea - it leads to more college dropouts, and how does that help anybody?


----------



## Room2201974

wkasimer said:


> It depends - the devil is in the details. If enrollment in the alternative Physics course is limited to members of "underrepresented minorities", it is indeed a bad thing. People may be part of various identity groups, but they are also individuals - and there are members of non-underrepresented groups that face similar challenges, and may need the additional support to fulfill their academic goals.


As I explained above, it is not an "alternative physics" class. Its a gen ed elective that is not used as a requirement for the BS in Physics. And, no where is it ever stated that the course is limited to minority enrollement. Consider the source when reading this kind of rubbish!


----------



## Guest

Room2201974 said:


> As I explained above, it is not an "alternative physics" class. Its a gen ed elective that is not used as a requirement for the BS in Physics. And, no where is it ever stated that the course is limited to minority enrollement. Consider the source when reading this kind of rubbish!


Why would it even be offered in the first place? I'm guessing it would still contribute towards the degree, the GPA.


----------



## wkasimer

DrMike said:


> Fully agree. Why would anybody think that teaching alternative science is a good thing?


It's not "alternative science". It's a physics course with additional support for those who, for whatever reason, need a greater level of support to learn physics.


----------



## wkasimer

Room2201974 said:


> And, no where is it ever stated that the course is limited to minority enrollement. Consider the source when reading this kind of rubbish!


Consider the atmosphere on college campuses, and you'll understand why I am not 100% confident about the requirements for enrollment.


----------



## Room2201974

DrMike said:


> Why would it even be offered in the first place? I'm guessing it would still contribute towards the degree, the GPA.


Pass/fail. Says so right in the course description. Can't be calculated in GPA.

If a one credit hour class taught in a university that teaches hundreds of classes can make someone shake in their boots, they've already lost the war.


----------



## Room2201974

wkasimer said:


> Consider the atmosphere on college campuses, and you'll understand why I am not 100% confident about the requirements for enrollment.


And the last time you were on a university campus either taking or teaching a course was?

Restrict enrollment by race? Are you kidding me? The real world seems to be different than your perception of it when it comes to this field.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Fully agree. Why would anybody think that teaching alternative science is a good thing? How would that help anybody in the real world? Will employers now have to scrutinize the course selections of potential employees to make sure they got the right kind of courses? And what good does it to teach a person some dumbed-down version of a course? Or some "culturally sensitive" version? That then gives the individual an artificially inflated sense of their abilities. Sending them out into the real world without a real notion of just what they are capable of - because they weren't taught the real stuff - is setting them up for disaster.


Who here (or at Stamford) is talking about teaching alternative science? Let's keep the straw men on a tight leash. Alternative science is reserved for the current Trump administration only.


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> I don't think Asians are "over-represented" at top colleges. In the Harvard suit, the Plaintiff claimed that to have the same chance of admission as a black, an Asian would need SAT scores 200 points higher. To my knowledge, this was never denied. Harvard's testimony seemed to be, "Well, it's complicated."
> 
> Closer to home, I have been told that if admissions were strictly on merit, the University of California at Berkeley would be 80% Asian. Of course, it's not.


"*Asian-Americans - about 6% of the U.S. population - made up nearly 23% of Harvard's most recent class of admitted students*, while African American students made up 15% and Hispanic or latino students made up 12%. Harvard admitted a majority of nonwhite students for the first time two years ago."

From the TIME article.......


----------



## Strange Magic

wkasimer said:


> It depends - the devil is in the details. If enrollment in the alternative Physics course is limited to members of "underrepresented minorities", it is indeed a bad thing. People may be part of various identity groups, but they are also individuals - and there are members of non-underrepresented groups that face similar challenges, and may need the additional support to fulfill their academic goals.


No problem. Stamford can include poor Appalachian or Ozarks youth or other such minorities underrepresented at such schools. A history of past neglect, poverty. Who are the overrepresented groups? The rich, the white, the preppies, the children of alums?


----------



## KenOC

Strange Magic said:


> "*Asian-Americans - about 6% of the U.S. population - made up nearly 23% of Harvard's most recent class of admitted students*, while African American students made up 15% and Hispanic or latino students made up 12%. Harvard admitted a majority of nonwhite students for the first time two years ago."
> 
> From the TIME article.......


The question is, what would the Asian-American admission rate be if decisions were made on merit? Another quote:
--------------------------------------
(Dean of Admissions William) Fitzsimmons himself admitted that Harvard sends recruitment letters to black, Hispanic, and Native American students with SAT scores around 1100. White students need another 210 points to receive an invitation. Asian women require an extra 40 points on top of that. Asian men need an additional 30 points.

The admissions office scores applicants according to five separate categories: "academic," "extracurricular," "athletic," "personal," and "overall." According to the plaintiffs, Harvard consistently rates Asian American applicants lower than others in the "personal" category on traits such as "integrity," "courage," being "widely respected," "kindness," having a "positive personality," and "likability."


----------



## Jacck

KenOC said:


> The admissions office scores applicants according to five separate categories: "academic," "extracurricular," "athletic," "personal," and "overall." According to the plaintiffs, Harvard consistently rates Asian American applicants lower than others in the "personal" category on traits such as "integrity," "courage," being "widely respected," "kindness," having a "positive personality," and "likability."


I don't even know why they use this crap to play any role in the admission. During my own admission to med school, we were given 2 days of tests from biology, physics, chemistry, and an IQ test. And this and nothing else was used as a basis for admission.


----------



## wkasimer

Jacck said:


> I don't even know why they use this crap to play any role in the admission. During my own admission to med school, we were given 2 days of tests from biology, physics, chemistry, and an IQ test. And this and nothing else was used as a basis for admission.


It's considerably different in the USA. We do have a universal test, the MCAT, which weighs pretty heavily in determining which candidates are considered for medical school. But there are lots of other factors considered, particularly college performance measured by GPA, letters of recommendation, and various and sundry other stuff. Different schools emphasize different factors, so admission can seem almost random. I applied to 23 schools (this was many years ago) and was accepted to only one. More recently, my daughter applied to a similar number, and was accepted at 4 or 5, and I have no idea why some accepted her and others didn't.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> I don't even know why they use this crap to play any role in the admission. During my own admission to med school, we were given 2 days of tests from biology, physics, chemistry, and an IQ test. And this and nothing else was used as a basis for admission.


That approach would be most appropriate in a society where everyone has access to the same quality of schooling.


----------



## Jacck

wkasimer said:


> It's considerably different in the USA. We do have a universal test, the MCAT, which weighs pretty heavily in determining which candidates are considered for medical school. But there are lots of other factors considered, particularly college performance measured by GPA, letters of recommendation, and various and sundry other stuff. Different schools emphasize different factors, so admission can seem almost random. I applied to 23 schools (this was many years ago) and was accepted to only one. More recently, my daughter applied to a similar number, and was accepted at 4 or 5, and I have no idea why some accepted her and others didn't.


the MCAT looks pretty much like the tests we were given. There are 7 med schools in our country and each of those schools has its own tests, ie there are no general tests. And factors like athletics, extracurricular activities, letters of recommendation, or personality assessments etc. play no role at all. Why should they? What do your skills at basketball have to do with your ability to study a school?


----------



## KenOC

Jacck said:


> I don't even know why they use this crap to play any role in the admission. During my own admission to med school, we were given 2 days of tests from biology, physics, chemistry, and an IQ test. And this and nothing else was used as a basis for admission.


On another front, College Board, which creates and administers the SATs, has been trialing an "Adversity Score" that accompanies applicants' SAT scores to college admissions departments. Neither the student nor family is allowed to see these scores, which are composites of local crime rates, unemployment rates, single-parent households, and so forth. The idea is to assign each student a "class background," a concept familiar to any student of Communism.

Now College Board has taken a step back and decided that a single score isn't the best way to go. Instead, they will score multiple factors separately in an approach called "Landscape." All else remains the same.

According to College Board, "White students scored an average of 177 points higher than black students and 133 points higher than Hispanic students in 2018 results. Asian students scored 100 points higher than white students." College Board lays this to variances in income, the reasoning usually favored among what we today call "liberals."

Here's the *Barron's *article.


----------



## Jacck

KenOC said:


> According to College Board, "White students scored an average of 177 points higher than black students and 133 points higher than Hispanic students in 2018 results. Asian students scored 100 points higher than white students." College Board lays this to variances in income, the reasoning usually favored among what we today call "liberals."


they go to all these crazy reality denying lengths just to explain away biology. It would be much more honest to use racial quotas, than to hide behind this obscure system. Nobody finds so crazy that the blacks have different composition of musles and so are much better runners, but to admit, that there might be cognitive ratial differences is the absolute tabu. So they will go into all these crazy contortions.


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> they go to all these crazy reality denying lengths just to explain away biology. It would be much more honest to use racial quotas, than to hide behind this obscure system. Nobody finds so crazy that the blacks have different composition of musles and so are much better runners, but to admit, that there might be cognitive ratial differences is the absolute tabu. So they will go into all these crazy contortions.


Well, well, what have we here? It must be quite different to live in an essentially uniform "ethnic/racial" environment like the Czech Republic, where the Czechs can't even abide the Slovaks. We here in the USA live in a land where our founding document prattles on about all "men" being equal, yet we imported a bunch of unequals and found a bunch here already. We also received everybody else's "tired and poor, huddled masses", etc., so we cannot have the luxury of monoculture as can most states founded around the idea of a tribe. America, in a hackneyed phrase, is instead a country founded upon an idea. And so we struggle constantly to get things right, and often fail dismally in the attempt. But "better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all".


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> Well, well, what have we here? It must be quite different to live in an essentially uniform "ethnic/racial" environment like the Czech Republic, where the Czechs can't even abide the Slovaks. We here in the USA live in a land where our founding document prattles on about all "men" being equal, yet we imported a bunch of unequals and found a bunch here already. We also received everybody else's "tired and poor, huddled masses", etc., so we cannot have the luxury of monoculture as can most states founded around the idea of a tribe. America, in a hackneyed phrase, is instead a country founded upon an idea. And so we struggle constantly to get things right, and often fail dismally in the attempt. But "better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all".


I am absolutely for equal human rights, ie equality of opportunity, equality before the law, equality of rights. But equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of results. The state should only level the playing field to achieve the equality of oportunity. If you try to achieve an equality of results, it is a pervesion and social engineering. We have had a lot of experience with that during communism, that might be the reason why I am more sensitive to these social engineering attempts than you.


----------



## KenOC

Strange Magic said:


> Well, well, what have we here? It must be quite different to live in an essentially uniform "ethnic/racial" environment like the Czech Republic, where the Czechs can't even abide the Slovaks. We here in the USA live in a land where our founding document prattles on about all "men" being equal, yet we imported a bunch of unequals and found a bunch here already. We also received everybody else's "tired and poor, huddled masses", etc., so we cannot have the luxury of monoculture as can most states founded around the idea of a tribe. America, in a hackneyed phrase, is instead a country founded upon an idea. And so we struggle constantly to get things right, and often fail dismally in the attempt. But "better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all".


Some truth here. Most colleges (Harvard included) consider it their responsibility to have a student body broadly representative of society as a whole, including all levels of income and all racial/ethnic groups. For various reasons, an admissions policy based purely on merit won't come close to achieving that. But inevitably, the "favored minority" game is going to get played. And somebody is going to get screwed.


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> I am absolutely for equal human rights, ie equality of opportunity, equality before the law, equality of rights. But equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of results. The state should only level the playing field to achieve the equality of oportunity. If you try to achieve an equality of results, it is a pervesion and social engineering. We have had a lot of experience with that during communism, that might be the reason why I am more sensitive to these social engineering attempts than you.


Equality of opportunity. A great and noble idea. Let everyone jump into the pool (whatever pool it is), with some wearing centuries of shackles, and then race to the other end. We do really need to make sure as a nation that equality of opportunity is more than just a slogan. It will take a lot of trying. And why can't the Czechs get on with the Slovaks? The Belgians are alleged to loathe one another but manage to hold together as a country.


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> Some truth here. Most colleges (Harvard included) consider it their responsibility to have a student body broadly representative of society as a whole, including all levels of income and all racial/ethnic groups. For various reasons, an admissions policy based purely on merit won't come close to achieving that. But inevitably, the "favored minority" game is going to get played. And somebody is going to get screwed.


Yes. Let's try screwing the heretofore privileged majority for a while, just to "even the playing field". What do we get? The politics of Trump and Trumpism, an appeal to pure self-interest. A good grounding in the history of Reconstruction makes for eye-opening reading.


----------



## KenOC

There's no meaning to "generations of shackles" in the US. Slaves were freed a century and a half ago. Get over it.

Since that time boatloads of illiterate Chinese were brought in under conditions of near slavery to labor on our railroads and waterways. They seem to have discarded their shackles rather easily.


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> Equality of opportunity. A great and noble idea. Let everyone jump into the pool (whatever pool it is), with some wearing centuries of shackles, and then race to the other end. We do really need to make sure as a nation that equality of opportunity is more than just a slogan. It will take a lot of trying. And why can't the Czechs get on with the Slovaks? The Belgians are alleged to loathe one another but manage to hold together as a country.


we can get quite well with the Slovaks, but there were populist politicians in Slovakia (Mečiar), and a certain fraction of voters who was responsive to these nationalist arguments, so we separated with no problems and continue having excellent relationships. Out of all our neighboring countries, Czech consistently like the Slovaks the most, and vice versa. We would have hated each other much more, if we had not separated
https://www.radio.cz/en/section/spe...r-divorce-czechs-and-slovaks-closer-than-ever


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> There's no meaning to "generations of shackles" in the US. Slaves were freed a century and a half ago. Get over it.
> 
> Since that time boatloads of illiterate Chinese were brought in under conditions of near slavery to labor on our railroads and waterways. They seem to have discarded their shackles rather easily.


Well, well, more of the same, it seems. An inferior race? Out with it, Man! You certainly need that grounding not only in the history of Reconstruction but also in American history since. I also recommend the works of Frederick Douglass and some books about the man. Well, well, well.......

I also counsel you being checked for acute myopia..


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> Well, well, more of the same, it seems. An inferior race? Out with it, Man! You certainly need that grounding not only in the history of Reconstruction but also in American history since. I also recommend the works of Frederick Douglass and some books about the man. Well, well, well.......
> 
> I also counsel you being checked for acute myopia..


can you explain to me, why the Ashkenazy Jews have 15 points higher IQs than the rest of the white race? They lived in diaspora for centuries, often under adversarial and underprivileged circumstances.


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> we can get quite well with the Slovaks, but there were populist politicians in Slovakia (Mečiar), and a certain fraction of voters who was responsive to these nationalist arguments, so we separated with no problems and continue having excellent relationships. Out of all our neighboring countries, Czech consistently like the Slovaks the most, and vice versa. We would have hated each other much more, if we had not separated
> https://www.radio.cz/en/section/spe...r-divorce-czechs-and-slovaks-closer-than-ever


Czechs="We". Slovaks="They". What is the history of Czech/Slovak hostility in the USA among our millions of immigrants? No blood in the streets? I recall during the unpleasantness between the Croats and Serbs back in the homeland that there was nothing at all in the neighborhoods here, other than people shaking their heads in sorrow and disbelief. Have we surmounted tribalism here? Not bloody likely, but Trump and his minions are trying their best to bring back the Good Old Days.


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> can you explain to me, why the Ashkenazy Jews have 15 points higher IQs than the rest of the white race? They lived in diaspora for centuries, often under adversarial and underprivileged circumstances.


Are Ashkenazy Jews smarter than Sephardic Jews? Am I smarter than you? Are blacks from the Islands smarter than American-born blacks? We need answers, and quickly!


----------



## wkasimer

Jacck said:


> the MCAT looks pretty much like the tests we were given. There are 7 med schools in our country and each of those schools has its own tests, ie there are no general tests. And factors like athletics, extracurricular activities, letters of recommendation, or personality assessments etc. play no role at all. Why should they? What do your skills at basketball have to do with your ability to study a school?


There's a lot more to being a doctor than scoring well on a test. Different personalities gravitate toward different specialties, and since medicine is, more and more, a "team sport", how you interact with people is important. I know a lot of really, really smart colleagues who are not very good doctors.


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> Czechs="We". Slovaks="They". What is the history of Czech/Slovak hostility in the USA among our millions of immigrants? No blood in the streets? I recall during the unpleasantness between the Croats and Serbs back in the homeland that there was nothing at all in the neighborhoods here, other than people shaking their heads in sorrow and disbelief. Have we surmounted tribalism here? Not bloody likely, but Trump and his minions are trying their best to bring back the Good Old Days.


the Czech/Slovak relationships are very different from the Croat/Serb relationships. We separated peacefully, they had a bloody war and bloody religious differences. I doubt there is any systemic level hate between the Czechs and Slovaks in the USA, they very likely flock together and form communities.


----------



## Jacck

wkasimer said:


> There's a lot more to being a doctor than scoring well on a test. Different personalities gravitate toward different specialties, and since medicine is, more and more, a "team sport", how you interact with people is important. I know a lot of really, really smart colleagues who are not very good doctors.


of course, but I doubt the ability of the admission comittees to judge these things correctly. And what does it mean to be a good doctor anyway? Some are very good at small talk with the patients, but might not be that good professionally. Some might be excellent surgeons, but have rude and arrogant personalities. Some might be more empathetic, some more analytic etc. Different styles, different personalities, different temperaments, different characters.


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> the Czech/Slovak relationships are very different from the Croat/Serb relationships. We separated peacefully, they had a bloody war and bloody religious differences. I doubt there is any systemic level hate between the Czechs and Slovaks in the USA, *they very likely flock together and form communities*.


I would regard that as a wonderful and American thing! They may even form communities with the Croats and Serbs.

Plus, to answer partially my own question, I think Michelle Obama is smarter than Melania Trump.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> they go to all these crazy reality denying lengths just to explain away biology. It would be much more honest to use racial quotas, than to hide behind this obscure system. Nobody finds so crazy that the blacks have different composition of musles and so are much better runners, but to admit, that there might be cognitive ratial differences is the absolute tabu. So they will go into all these crazy contortions.


It is more complicated than you acknowledge. It is true that IQ tests and the various scholastic achievement tests measure something reproducible. Mainly they correlate with subsequent academic success. But it is a stretch to claim there is strong evidence that they measure innate intelligence. There is a genetic component, but intelligence is also partially cultivated by early education and environment. In the case of African Americans average scores are lower but racial discrimination in the U.S. is so pervasive that African Americans effectively live in a different country than white Americans. Aside from social bias, African Americans are typically provided drinking water with higher levels of toxins such as lead (which causes cognitive deficits) and sources of pollution are more likely to be placed in area where African Americans live. They literally breath inferior air compared with white citizens. Schools in the U.S are funded by local property taxes, and the result is that poor people get a dramatically inferior public education in the U.S.

It is true that lowering admission standards for members of certain racial groups is a very bad solution. Studies have shown that a black person who, despite all disadvantages, scores very well on IQ and achievement tests is less likely to attend college than a white student with below average scores. These very talented black students don't even apply for college, because in their world it isn't even considered a possibility. The preferences for minority students are not reaching the students who could truly benefit from them.

African Americans have less economic success, on average, than white Americans, but immigrants from Africa to the U.S. have higher educational and economic success than white Americans, on average. This is also evidence of the cultural origin of the lesser average achievement of African Americans.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Strange Magic said:


> I would regard that as a wonderful and American thing! They may even form communities with the Croats and Serbs.
> 
> Plus, to answer partially my own question, I think Michelle Obama is smarter than Melania Trump.


It's not exclusively an "American thing". The "Czechoslovaks" (sic) tend to form relatively close groups here in the UK. Even where we live there's a Circle and a school, where half-cast kids can learn the lingo and mix with similar! But there is no hint of any Yugoslavs in any of that. Language, history, culture, 1000 miles and some Alps are enough to keep the two as far apart as possible!

On your final point, I cannot even begin to disagree, but it's hardly the greatest accolade Mrs Obama will ever be afforded.....


----------



## Jacck

Baron Scarpia said:


> It is more complicated than you acknowledge. It is true that IQ tests and the various scholastic achievement tests measure something reproducible. Mainly they correlate with subsequent academic success. But it is a stretch to claim there is strong evidence that they measure innate intelligence. There is a genetic component, but intelligence is also partially cultivated by early education and environment. In the case of African Americans average scores are lower but racial discrimination in the U.S. is so pervasive that African Americans effectively live in a different country than white Americans. Aside from social bias, African Americans are typically provided drinking water with higher levels of toxins such as lead (which causes cognitive deficits) and sources of pollution are more likely to be placed in area where African Americans live. They literally breath inferior air compared with white citizens. Schools in the U.S are funded by local property taxes, and the result is that poor people get a dramatically inferior public education in the U.S. It is true that lowering admission standards for members of certain racial groups is a very bad solution. Studies have shown that a black person who, despite all disadvantages, scores very well on IQ and achievement tests is less likely to attend college than a white student with below average scores. These very talented black students don't even apply for college, because in their world it isn't even considered a possibility. The preferences for minority students are not reaching the students who could truly benefit from them. African Americans have less economic success, on average, than white Americans, but immigrants from Africa to the U.S. have higher educational and economic success than white Americans, on average. This is also evidence of the cultural origin of the lesser average achievement of African Americans.


I do not want to go into this discussion, because it is a dangerous territory. I am not racist, I like the blacks, and I have no malicious intent behind this. But it is my conviction, that this consistently observed difference in IQ and SAT scores are largely biological and that the socialization factors cannot explain this difference. Look at China. The level of toxic pollution, poverty etc. there is much higher than in the US, yet the averate IQ in China is 107. The East Asian race is the most physically fragile, but also smarter than the other races with the only exception of the Ashkenazy Jews. You can go and look into studies, that studied IQ of twins separated at birth that grew in different environments, you can look at the effect of adoption on IQ etc. All these studies show, that the environment has a small effect on the IQ. There were many academics who pointed this out, most notably Watson (the discoverer of DNA), or Larry Summers, or the recent researcher from Cambridge who was subsequently fired just for pointing it out. Do what you will, but the blacks will continue to underperform on SAT scores, and women will be underrepresented in technical fields such as physics and no amount of "diversity and inclusion" programs will change it. And these minorities do not have low IQs because they are poor, but rather they are poor, because they have low IQs

https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299
http://www.honestthinking.org/en/pu...istic_fallacy.Race_realism.Rushton.Jensen.htm


----------



## Jacck

Academic Science Rethinks All-Too-White 'Dude Walls' Of Honor 
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...ce-rethinks-all-too-white-dude-walls-of-honor


----------



## Strange Magic

> Jacck: "I do not want to go into this discussion, because it is a dangerous territory."


Wiser words were seldom spoken. Until what IQ tests actually measure is fully understood and until all cultural and environmental factors have been totally equalized, and all researcher bias eliminated, it is dangerous and destructive to float theories of racial/ethnic superiority/inferiority for reasons that will immediately suggest themselves to the thoughtful and empathetic mind. I find the sorrowful hand-wringing over the perceived deficiencies of our alleged intellectual racial inferiors to be but the latest manifestation of a manufactured racism that has been discussed fully as the _ex post facto_ attempt of those enslaving or otherwise exploiting other groups as members of legitimately targetable groups. One need only read of the concept of "honor" as promulgated by the white slaveholding class in ante-bellum America to get the full flavor of the rot within. While the existence of the Holocaust is unassailable , and thus its denial is proof of either profound ignorance or of a willfull compulsion to evil, the question of the legitimacy of the concepts of both race and IQ are yet to be established (and won't be, perhaps ever). Yet it is clear that to suppose that they have been established and that we may form opinions and act upon those opinions, is to inflict similar damage on both our own thinking and upon the prospects of improving the chances for real human equality. It's better to remain silent, withhold judgement, and act--in word and deed--as if all people were equal.


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> It's better to remain silent, withhold judgement, and act--in word and deed--as if all people were equal.


yet these universities do not act as if all people were equal. They treat them differently based on from what racial/enthnic groups they come. They do not look at you as an individual, as a human being, but through the lense of your racial background to fill some diversity and inclusion quotas. They gave up on the equality of opportunity and want to achieve an equality of result. And this in turn cripples the academia in the US.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...ce-rethinks-all-too-white-dude-walls-of-honor
this is the sad reality of academia in the US. I am currently working on a scientific publication with a coauthor from this exact hospital. They take down potraits of Nobel prize winners, so that some dumb cow of TV star does not feel threatened by all those "white dudes". And they hire more women and more people of color to achieve "diversity and equality" and so transform the university from a place of excellence for the brilliant to a place of the average.

https://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Delusion-Pandering-University-Undermine/dp/1250200911


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> yet these universities do not act as if all people were equal. They treat them differently based on from what racial/enthnic groups they come. They do not look at you as an individual, as a human being, but through the lense of your racial background to fill some diversity and inclusion quotas. They gave up on the equality of opportunity and want to achieve an equality of result. And this in turn cripples the academia in the US.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/sections/health...ce-rethinks-all-too-white-dude-walls-of-honor
> this is the sad reality of academia in the US. I am currently working on a scientific publication with a coauthor from this exact hospital. They take down potraits of Nobel prize winners, so that some dumb cow of TV star does not feel threatened by all those "white dudes". And they hire more women and more people of color to achieve "diversity and equality" and so transform the university from a place of excellence for the brilliant to a place of the average.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Delusion-Pandering-University-Undermine/dp/1250200911


When I write that we should act as if all people are equal, I certainly hoped to imply that we consider the full context within which we bestow that supposition of equality. Many people and groups are disabled by environmental and cultural and historical factors from being able to compete effectively right from the very beginning of the contest (if contest it is). Consider a trained adult athlete, raised by encouraging parents, and accessing the best trainers and equipment, competing with a 10-year old. Yet that 10-year old, given similar parenting, training, and mentoring, may when grown to adulthood come to rival or surpass. Life's rewards and benefits accrue mostly to those already benefitting by reason of birth, parentage, wealth, superior "culture", etc., leading to a self-perpetuating regime of stratification and of unequal access to the means for further advancement over their contemporaries. The rare examples of disadvantaged people rising above their station--lifting themselves by their own bootstraps--shows us that improvement and excellence are possible everywhere, given societal commitment to wholesale improvement in the lives of massive numbers of ignored and forgotten citizens. When true equality of initial starting conditions has been met, then we can turn our attention to instances of demonstrable unfairness in the system. The problems presented by a multi-ethnic culture such as America, steeped in centuries of racism, are of a different order of magnitude than those of a small monocultural "tribal" country like many of those in Europe, Japan, etc. The range from impoverished--intellectually, culturally, financially--to absurdly affluent here is orders of magnitude greater than in, say, Norway, or the Czech Republic. For those reasons, I would wager that the range from lowest to highest IQ in Norway will easily be far less than the range in America.


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> When I write that we should act as if all people are equal, I certainly hoped to imply that we consider the full context within which we bestow that supposition of equality. Many people and groups are disabled by environmental and cultural and historical factors from being able to compete effectively right from the very beginning of the contest (if contest it is). Consider a trained adult athlete, raised by encouraging parents, and accessing the best trainers and equipment, competing with a 10-year old. Yet that 10-year old, given similar parenting, training, and mentoring, may when grown to adulthood come to rival or surpass. Life's rewards and benefits accrue mostly to those already benefitting by reason of birth, parentage, wealth, superior "culture", etc., leading to a self-perpetuating regime of stratification and of unequal access to the means for further advancement over their contemporaries. The rare examples of disadvantaged people rising above their station--lifting themselves by their own bootstraps--shows us that improvement and excellence are possible everywhere, given societal commitment to wholesale improvement in the lives of massive numbers of ignored and forgotten citizens. When true equality of initial starting conditions has been met, then we can turn our attention to instances of demonstrable unfairness in the system. The problems presented by a multi-ethnic culture such as America, steeped in centuries of racism, are of a different order of magnitude than those of a small monocultural "tribal" country like many of those in Europe, Japan, etc. The range from impoverished--intellectually, culturally, financially--to absurdly affluent here is orders of magnitude greater than in, say, Norway, or the Czech Republic. For those reasons, I would wager that the range from lowest to highest IQ in Norway will easily be far less than the range in America.


yes, we have a pretty homogenous society with the lowest poverty rate in Europe
https://kafkadesk.org/2019/01/28/young-czechs-least-at-risk-of-poverty-in-europe/
https://www.neweurope.eu/article/czech-republic-lowest-poverty-level-eu/
if you want to correct the disadvantages for those poor and underprivileged, then I think a better way is to provide a "free" education. I had a collegue in med school, his father was a mason and his mother had also some worker job. But he was clever and could study the school, because he did not need to pay very high tuition. He just had to work a little to pay for student dormitory in Prague etc. In the US, the schools are extremely expensive and the students need to take high loans, and so that only rich families can afford it. So level the field in this manner, and not leting the 10 years old kids compete with the grown athletes.


----------



## mmsbls

This thread has veered far off the topic of philanthropy. Please refrain from continuing discussions that digress too far from this topic.


----------



## Jacck

I investigated some more into the relationship between IQs and different ethnic groups and it is a difficult topic. I have neither a racist agenda, nor will I succumb to a moral fallacy that reality must accomodate to our ideological wishes. I simply want to know the truth of the matter.

In support of the theory, that IQ is largely controlled by environment speaks for example the Flynn effect, that IQ in western countries has been increasing since WW1, and that during WW1 IQ in Europe was also around 70, ie what we now observe in Africa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
and there is also an extremly strong correlation between child mortality and IQ, which again hints at a strong role of environment
https://www.quora.com/Whats-your-opinion-on-racial-IQ-differences?share=1
and the African-Americans have a much higher infant mortality
https://www.statista.com/statistics...y-rate-in-the-us-by-race-ethnicity-of-mother/

on the other hand are genetic studies such as the Minnesota study, which show that genetics is 70 and environment 30 percent
https://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html
there is also the Wilson effect, which shows that IQ can be influenced by childhood, but in adulthood it is 90 percent genetic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

so to sum it up. There is not enough arguments to support any theory at this moment. The ethnic differences could be genetic or they could be environmental or any combination of both. The research of intelligence is certainly a very interesting topic from a scientific perspective, but morally difficult because proximity to things such as eugenics

I found an interesting explanation why the Chinese score much higher on the SAT tests. They have many of the SAT answers beforehand, and they are trained for these tests
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-East-Asian-countries-have-higher-IQ-and-PISA-test-scores
I also believe that you can "learn" IQ tests. If you practice them and do a lot of the problems that are usually done on IQ tests, you will perform better and better. And the Asian culture is very dilligent and hardworking, which might explain why they perform better.

some of these tests could be also culturally dependent, as shown by the The Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Intelligence_Test_of_Cultural_Homogeneity


----------



## Jacck

and even more interesting, some studies from England are showing, that the blacks are catching up 
http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/
it is also true, that Africa is enthnically an extremely diverse country, and that there might be very large differences between the enthnicities within Africa


----------



## Room2201974

You know that sickening feeling you get right before you throw up................


----------



## Strange Magic

First, we need to establish the validity of the concept of "race". Second, we must demonstrate that "IQ" tests actually and accurately measure....something. These are two enormous tasks, as yet on extremely shaky ground. Then, once both are established, we must then apportion the "racial" makeup of individuals and groups, and also the cultural and environmental and parental influences at work and their efficacy in how one does on "IQ" tests. Then, having come up with whatever notion as to what a group's "IQ" is or ought to be, how do we address the "problem"? Do we tell people "Don't bother thinking about X as a career when your genes fit you only for Y." How vile a business is that?

Apologies for continuing down a forbidden path.......


----------



## Jacck

Room2201974 said:


> You know that sickening feeling you get right before you throw up................


this moral superiority and ostensible throwing up is what gave you Trump 
https://www.theguardian.com/society...tity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division



Strange Magic said:


> First, we need to establish the validity of the concept of "race". Second, we must demonstrate that "IQ" tests actually and accurately measure....something. These are two enormous tasks, as yet on extremely shaky ground. Then, once both are established, we must then apportion the "racial" makeup of individuals and groups, and also the cultural and environmental and parental influences at work and their efficacy in how one does on "IQ" tests. Then, having come up with whatever notion as to what a group's "IQ" is or ought to be, how do we address the "problem"? Do we tell people "Don't bother thinking about X as a career when your genes fit you only for Y." How vile a business is that?


you can define various groups genetically based on haplogroups and haplotypes and trace the ancestry




But the concept of race is difficult. Look at the video how many different enthnicities there are within Africa. I did some traveling in Tanzania and there is HUGE diversity of peoples and of ethnic groups. Much more than within Europe. In Tanzania alone, there are some 50 different enthnicities, each with its own culture, its own language and its own physiognomy (ie they look different)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_Tanzania
Are all of these people different races?
And there are likely differences in intelligence among these groups in Africa
a certain ethnic group in Africa - the Igbo (Nigeria, Ghana) - has outperformed even whites and asians
http://afripol.org/afripol/item/181...nce-in-destroys-the-myth-of-black-low-iq.html
that is probably the reason why Nigeria is posed to dominate Africa
https://mg.co.za/article/2015-04-02-nigeria-will-be-africas-first-global-superpower


----------



## Strange Magic

> Jacck: "this moral superiority and ostensible throwing up is what gave you Trump
> https://www.theguardian.com/society/...on-to-division


It is unclear what you mean here. Please elaborate who is being morally superior, and how.


----------



## Strange Magic

Trump seized upon "tribalism" with both hands, and elevated it--like any good fascist-- into the central core and engine of his political rise. It is now safe to be a White Supremacist in America today, with the winks and nods of Trump and his explainers, enablers, excusers in the "Republican'' Party, and the NRA waiting in the wings for Pat Buchanan's long-prophesied Culture (and race) War to begin.


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> It is unclear what you mean here. Please elaborate who is being morally superior, and how.


Room2201974 was throwing up, so I presumed that he somehow felt morally revulsed by what he read here. And everybody considers themselves morally superior.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/most-people-consider-themselves-to-be-morally-superior/



Strange Magic said:


> Trump seized upon "tribalism" with both hands, and elevated it--like any good fascist-- into the central core and engine of his political rise. It is now safe to be a White Supremacist in America today, with the winks and nods of Trump and his explainers, enablers, excusers in the "Republican'' Party, and the NRA waiting in the wings for Pat Buchanan's long-prophesied Culture (and race) War to begin.


if you read the very good article from the Guardian, it will explain to you, how the tribalism on the left led to the tribalism on the right. But let me quote

_"At its core, the problem is simple but fundamental. While black Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Jewish Americans, and many others are allowed - indeed, encouraged - to feel solidarity and take pride in their racial or ethnic identity, white Americans have for the last several decades been told they must never, ever do so. People want to see their own tribe as exceptional, as something to be deeply proud of; that's what the tribal instinct is all about. For decades now, nonwhites in the United States have been encouraged to indulge their tribal instincts in just this way, but, at least publicly, American whites have not. On the contrary, if anything, they have been told that their white identity is something no one should take pride in. "I get it," says Christian Lander, creator of the popular satirical blog Stuff White People Like, "as a straight white male, I'm the worst thing on Earth." But the tribal instinct is not so easy to suppress. As Vassar professor Hua Hsu put it in an Atlantic essay called "The End of White America?" the "result is a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead." In combination with the profound demographic transformation now taking place in America, this suppressed urge on the part of many white Americans - to feel solidarity and pride in their group identity, as others are allowed to do - has created an especially fraught set of tribal dynamics in the United States today. Just after the 2016 election, a former Never Trumper explained his change of heart in the Atlantic: "My college-age daughter constantly hears talk of white privilege and racial identity, of separate dorms for separate races (somewhere in heaven Martin Luther King Jr is hanging his head and crying) … I hate identity politics, [but] when everything is about identity politics, is the left really surprised that on Tuesday millions of white Americans … voted as 'white'? If you want identity politics, identity politics is what you will get.""_


----------



## CnC Bartok

I do remember that they proved, back in the early 1970s, that penguins were intellectually at the same level as people from Sweden. Both were subjected to standard IQ tests (in English) and both groups scored similarly.

I believe this was on a programme by the investigative journalist Monty Python.


----------



## Strange Magic

I found Amy Chua's Guardian article unpersuasive. White Americans (perhaps other than WASPs) have always have and still have their celebrations of their hyphenated ethnic identities: Italian Americans, Polish Americans, Greek Americans, etc., with their distinctive holidays, consumes, foods, dances. It has only been with the growing self-assertion of brown, yellow, black American minorities that American whites (some) have allegedly begun to experience the uncomfortable position of having their all-pervasive sense of ultimate superiority over other groups jeopardized--a sense of superiority that is the end product of centuries of slavery, discrimination, dominance, and violence.

It is hardly the doings and utterances of left-wing coastal elites that are the source of the alleged growing counter-tribalism of the Right White; it is the naked reality that formerly marginalized "inferior" peoples are now, through law and through numbers and through political power, taking their place in the structure. And Donald Trump, as President of the United States and top influencer, is the primary source, encourager, and validator of whatever anti-Other feelings that, by his example, he engenders in some portion of his followers. Reminiscent of 1930s Germany, with the rise of the Proud Boys and other thugs, goons, and "hard people" that Trump hints he is just barely keeping in check. The cure is to crush Trump and Trumpism at the polls.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Trump seized upon "tribalism" with both hands, and elevated it--like any good fascist-- into the central core and engine of his political rise. It is now safe to be a White Supremacist in America today, with the winks and nods of Trump and his explainers, enablers, excusers in the "Republican'' Party, and the NRA waiting in the wings for Pat Buchanan's long-prophesied Culture (and race) War to begin.


Did you expect that from The Donald? I didn't.


----------



## Luchesi

I figured I'd better copy these posts with their informative URLs because the moderators don't usually allow a thread to swerve off topic for long.


----------



## mmsbls

Luchesi said:


> I figured I'd better copy these posts with their informative URLs because the moderators don't usually allow a thread to swerve off topic for long.


Good idea. It's not that the thread has gone off-topic. Many threads do, and we have no problem because the other topic(s) are related and not problematic. We have simply seen too may religious or political discussions lead to problems. WE have been more permissive lately, but recent threads have suggested that perhaps we should shut things down sooner.

So...please do return to non-political comments.


----------



## Strange Magic

*George Soros, Philanthropist*

Readers of George Orwell's _1984_ will remember the name of the doubly fictitious Emmanuel Goldstein. Goldstein, as the embodiment of everything that was Jewish and "evil" in Oceania, was invented by the all-powerful state as someone to hate, a way to have the denizens of Oceania bond together with Big Brother in their shared revulsion of the loathed Goldstein.

George Soros is the Emmanuel Goldstein of Right-Wing and proto-fascist fanatics everywhere these days, not only in America. If Soros did not exist, the Right would have to invent him, a la Goldstein. But he is quite a different sort of philanthropist than the late David Koch, as will be seen in this BBC article.....

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-49...and_canada&link_location=live-reporting-story


----------



## CnC Bartok

^^^ A very very interesting article, which I read just a couple of hours ago, before seeing your post, wonderful coincidence.

Can we send a copy to Viktor Orban by any chance?


----------



## starthrower

*"It terrifies me that this kind of rhetoric, which used to be heard in beer halls and dark corners, is being spoken by politicians, by leaders of countries, the deputy prime minister of Italy, the prime minister of Hungary. That this kind of language is being used is shocking."*

That's the truly scary aspect. And no leadership coming from the US.


----------



## CnC Bartok

starthrower said:


> *"It terrifies me that this kind of rhetoric, which used to be heard in beer halls and dark corners, is being spoken by politicians, by leaders of countries, the deputy prime minister of Italy, the prime minister of Hungary. That this kind of language is being used is shocking."*
> 
> That's the truly scary aspect. And no leadership coming from the US.


Not even as good as "no leadership". Soros is financing the trillions of Mexicans swarming over the wall-less border, and financing protests and riots, according to someone who shall remain nameless. It's "anti-Semitism lite", so it's "acceptable", it seems.

Here in the UK, we could maybe have a gripe with Soros, the man who sank the Pound back in the early 90s. But it's the "other" anti-Semitism that's becoming mainstream again. I have never been a Labour supporter, never will be, but the shame I feel that one of out main political parties is rife with it is genuine. With the other big party flirting with outright xenophobia, what hope do we have?

I assume you cannot get BBC TV, but fyi there's a documentary on Soros - The Conspiracy Files - being aired tonight, BBC2 9pm.


----------



## Jacck

the BBC article misses the main culprit behind the rise of the right-wing populists and also the main culprit behind Soros conspiracy theories 
https://www.dw.com/en/vladimir-putin-and-viktor-orbans-special-relationship/a-45512712
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/29/marine-le-pen-putin-trump-axis
https://brexituncovered.blogspot.com/2019/04/nigel-farage-and-russia.html
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertonardelli/salvini-russia-oil-deal-secret-recording
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...trumps-ties-russia-go-back-30-years/97949746/
though not all of these authoritarian crooks are necessarily Russian stooges. Erdogan is probably not, and I do not know that much about Bolsanaro, but he would certainly fits in this society.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Who'd have thought it......


----------



## Guest

CnC Bartok said:


> Not even as good as "no leadership". Soros is financing the trillions of Mexicans swarming over the wall-less border, and financing protests and riots, according to someone who shall remain nameless. It's "anti-Semitism lite", so it's "acceptable", it seems.
> 
> Here in the UK, we could maybe have a gripe with Soros, the man who sank the Pound back in the early 90s. But it's the "other" anti-Semitism that's becoming mainstream again. I have never been a Labour supporter, never will be, but the shame I feel that one of out main political parties is rife with it is genuine. With the other big party flirting with outright xenophobia, what hope do we have?
> 
> I assume you cannot get BBC TV, but fyi there's a documentary on Soros - The Conspiracy Files - being aired tonight, BBC2 9pm.


That is quite true about Soros. He funds an organization in our country, "Get Up", which is extremely toxic. But, of course, it operates under the aegis of being good for the people. Now, where have I heard that before? Soros is for Soros the way W.R. Hearst was in it for himself. A film was made about it!!:tiphat:

I'm reading an excellent book, "*Ship of Fools*" by Tucker Carlson. I've seen him on Fox and his program doesn't interest me but this book is extremely well written and really nails the problem of elitism and how the 'ruling class is destroying America'. Both sides come in for a shellacking. And it explains the rise of Trump. Carlson has made one factual error which has to do with WW1 and it is rather glaring - he described Archduke Ferdinand of Austria (the one murdered in Sarajevo, precipitating the war) as a 'minor aristocrat'. He was heir to the throne of the Habsburg Monarchy, subsequent to the death by suicide of the real heir, Rudolf, at Mayerling in the late 19th century.

Anyway, the book is right en pointe apart from that error. And he agrees with me; the elites were originally warriors for the Left - who cared about the rights of the working class. Unfortunately for the latter, the Left got rich!! And now their 'boutique' issues are the only ones which interest them. But not the rest of us!!


----------



## Room2201974

"Tripe face boogie
Boogie my sneakers away"


----------



## starthrower

Room2201974 said:


> "Tripe face boogie
> Boogie my sneakers away"


Lowell George for president.


----------



## Strange Magic

Tucker Carlson: hard to imagine a less reliable, more biased observer of today's phenomena than Tucker Carlson. He is representative of the kind of fungi that have sprung up out of.the decaying corpse of the former Republican Party--once the Party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, now of White Supremacy, the NRA, and blind obedience to the whims of a narcissist child-man.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Tucker Carlson: hard to imagine a less reliable, more biased observer of today's phenomena than Tucker Carlson. He is representative of the kind of fungi that have sprung up out of.the decaying corpse of the former Republican Party--once the Party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, now of White Supremacy, the NRA, and blind obedience to the whims of a narcissist child-man.


I do not think you can say that when CNN was feeding questions during the Presidential debates in 2016. Egregious, to say the least of it. None of your comments constitute anything remotely resembling an argument.

You take Trump too seriously; he's the chemotherapy which is destroying the cancer in the body politic. I'm afraid it has metastisized into the 'swamp' he was elected to drain. Nobody wants chemo, but sometimes it is absolutely necessary when you want to kill off cancer. That is his sole reason for existing.

That and the fact that he's the uber-transactional politician; something the Left will never understand because they've never had to do deals and play REALLY HARD BALL.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Sorry, but I have found no suggestion or indeed evidence other than spiteful hearsay that Soros has had anything to do with financing Get Up. Is there any evidence for this, or just more anti-Semitic gossip?


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> I do not think you can say that when CNN was feeding questions during the Presidential debates in 2016. Egregious, to say the least of it. None of your comments constitute anything remotely resembling an argument.
> 
> You take Trump too seriously; he's the chemotherapy which is destroying the cancer in the body politic. I'm afraid it has metastisized into the 'swamp' he was elected to drain. Nobody wants chemo, but sometimes it is absolutely necessary when you want to kill off cancer. That is his sole reason for existing.
> 
> That and the fact that he's the uber-transactional politician; something the Left will never understand because they've never had to do deals and play REALLY HARD BALL.


Other than the fact that Trump daily degrades and demeans the office of President of the United States, his unceasingly grotesque and squalid "performance" as Sean Hannity's (actual co-president with Miller, Pence, and McConnell) hand puppet magnifies the utter moral and philosophical and ethical decay of the GOP--now a bunch of rubber stamps to the increasingly crazy behavior of this sick boy in the body of a septuagenarian. Meanwhile, Putin plays them all like Stradivarii. No wonder droves of authentic conservatives have either quit the party, disavowed Trump, ot both.

But you're right. We do pay too much attention to Trump--he is too much a narcissist, too much a diseased boy to be the real threat as a demagogue, the next Hitler. That person is watching in the wings, seeing how easy it is to win over the Christabels of this world. When the Hard People, the Proud Boys supporting Trump and feeding on his waste are unleashed, you will then see REALLY HARD BALL.


----------



## Strange Magic

Trump's "transactional" accomplishments: A wonderful Infrastructure bill, supported by all. A Mexican Wall paid for by Mexico. Universal healthcare replacing Obamacare and loved by all. Iran totally shutting down its nuke and missile program. North Korea totally shutting down its nuke and missile program. China caving before our tariff terrorism. Halfway toward eliminating the yearly budget deficit and making big strides in cutting the national debt. Distancing the US from old, unreliable burdens like the UK, France, Germany, and finding new friends like MBS in Saudi Arabia, Vlad (of course), Bolsonaro--people we can trust. And cycling through dozens and dozens of high-ranking government officials so everybody gets the chance to be National Security Advisor, Chief of Staff, Defense Secretary, FBI Director. And, best of all, convincingly demonstrating that he knows more about every subject than the greatest experts in any field, and being the only person who can fix the broken things--the Chosen One.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Strange Magic said:


> Trump's "transactional" accomplishments: A wonderful Infrastructure bill, supported by all. A Mexican Wall paid for by Mexico. Universal healthcare replacing Obamacare and loved by all. Iran totally shutting down its nuke and missile program. North Korea totally shutting down its nuke and missile program. China caving before our tariff terrorism. Halfway toward eliminating the yearly budget deficit and making big strides in cutting the national debt. Distancing the US from old, unreliable burdens like the UK, France, Germany, and finding new friends like MSB in Saudi Arabia, Vlad (of course), Bolsonaro--people we can trust. And cycling through dozens and dozens of high-ranking government officials so everybody gets the chance to be National Security Advisor, Chief of Staff, Defense Secretary, FBI Director. And, best of all, convincingly demonstrating that he knows more about every subject than the greatest experts in any field, and being the only person who can fix the broken things--the Chosen One.


Do I perchance detect a hint of irony in the above?


----------



## KenOC

SM is slipping. He hasn't mentioned the NRA in his last two posts.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> SM is slipping. He hasn't mentioned the NRA in his last two posts.


Must have taken the tinfoil hat off, and they were able to get him with their mind control ray.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Must have taken the tinfoil hat off, and they were able to get him with their mind control ray.


Their mind control ray is directed at the walnut brain of Donald Trump. We remember several times, with much huffing and puffing, The Donald has pledged to "fix" the gun/mass murder phenomenon. Then ol' Wayne LaPierre calls him on the red phone and reminds Donald who is actually controlling him. DrMike apparently is in lockstep with the NRA, and shares their dream of America as a Nation of Scorpions, armed, dangerous, and Geared for Trouble, ready to bring down any miscreant in a devastating hail of carefully aimed gunfire. What a future lies before us!


----------



## Guest

CnC Bartok said:


> Do I perchance detect a hint of irony in the above?


No; just raw hatred.

I'll let you in on a secret; Trump is going to be re-elected next year. The chemotherapy hasn't completely worked yet. The 'fly-overs' and 'deplorables' are the only demographic resistant to, or not needing, the chemo. They're still smarting about being referred to contemptibly by a presidential candidate.

The whole world was staggered by that one!! The Donald is erratic, yes, but when in a war you need the biggest possible weapon on the other team. And that's what the US has done to itself. People can yell, howl, smart, abuse, destroy reputations, shut down speech and hate till the cows come how (Oh, is that them mooing in the distance?) but until the Democrats take a long, hard look at themselves this will continue. You can take that to the bank.

Don't expect the country club (Republicans) to do anything about it either. Most of them are rich and they don't care whether they run politics because they're running everything else.


----------



## KenOC

Strange Magic said:


> Their mind control ray is directed at the walnut brain of Donald Trump...


If Trump is such a simpleton, then how did he win the election against a candidate who had the full backing of Wall Street and spent twice the money he did? And why is he looking so good to win re-election? Perhaps he is a cleverer fellow than you give him credit for.


----------



## Strange Magic

A) Like popular vote loser and boy(ish) president George W. Bush (Iraq, Great Recession), the mad boy Trump was second Republican popular vote loser in a row but this time managed to fall 3 million votes behind, before the warped, undemocratic electoral college system snatched victory for him from the jaws of defeat.

B) Trump was the brain-dead survivor of a brawling host of brain-dead "Republican" candidates, themselves the latest well-rotted fruit of a brain-dead party that had lost its way entirely from its roots as the party of Abolition, the Union, Black enfranchisement, and fiscal integrity. If Theodore Roosevelt today saw Donald Trump, he would first vomit, then condemn him to the lowest reaches of Hell.

C) I know you like to keep the pot well-stirred Ken, up here on the Community Forum, but having observed the increasingly nutty behavior of The Donald, assessing his refusal to actually know anything real or to learn anything, and his utter inability to deliver on virtually all of his "promises", will you vote for him? Let's not forget the daily stream of lies; surely that counts for something also. To paraphrase Chris Christie's usual defense of Trump on Sunday mornings, "I've known Donald Trump for 18 years. He's my friend and he likes to lie; he just lies all the time; it's who he is; you'll just have to get used to it.". Please!


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> No; just raw hatred.
> 
> I'll let you in on a secret; Trump is going to be re-elected next year. The chemotherapy hasn't completely worked yet. The 'fly-overs' and 'deplorables' are the only demographic resistant to, or not needing, the chemo. They're still smarting about being referred to contemptibly by a presidential candidate.
> 
> The whole world was staggered by that one!! The Donald is erratic, yes, but when in a war you need the biggest possible weapon on the other team. And that's what the US has done to itself. People can yell, howl, smart, abuse, destroy reputations, shut down speech and hate till the cows come how (Oh, is that them mooing in the distance?) but until the Democrats take a long, hard look at themselves this will continue. You can take that to the bank.
> 
> Don't expect the country club (Republicans) to do anything about it either. Most of them are rich and they don't care whether they run politics because they're running everything else.


I'll own up to the raw hatred. Having read some American and World history, and having observed the accelerating decay of the Republican Party, judged on every parameter, I tremble for my country. The Trump junta has driven out the few last real conservatives and replaced them with the precursors of the Goebbals, Bormanns, and Himmlers that may come later, once The Donald has served his purpose and been replaced by the Hardest of the Hard Men waiting and watching. Christabel's answer is a Plague on Both Their Houses cynicism that will explode like a stink bomb in his face, fixes nothing, offers no way out.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> I'll own up to the raw hatred. Having read some American and World history, and having observed the accelerating decay of the Republican Party, judged on every parameter, I tremble for my country. The Trump junta has driven out the few last real conservatives and replaced them with the precursors of the Goebbals, Bormanns, and Himmlers that may come later, once The Donald has served his purpose and been replaced by the Hardest of the Hard Men waiting and watching. Christabel's answer is a Plague on Both Their Houses cynicism that will explode like a stink bomb in his face, fixes nothing, offers no way out.


I think of it a different way. Donald Trump is our Boris Yeltsin. If we don't watch out, he will be followed by our Vladimir Putin.


----------



## EdwardBast

Baron Scarpia said:


> I think of it a different way. Donald Trump is our Boris Yeltsin. If we don't watch out, *he will be followed by our Vladimir Putin.*


As opposed to the current situation of being led by their Vladimir Putin?


----------



## Guest

So, philanthropy, huh?


----------



## Jacck

Baron Scarpia said:


> I think of it a different way. Donald Trump is our Boris Yeltsin. If we don't watch out, he will be followed by our Vladimir Putin.


Trump is harmless. Most of the world already figured out that he is mostly bluff. Of course he is a man of no moral integrity, but he is too chaotic, clueless and aimless to do any real damage. On the other hand Putin is a psychopath, who is intelligent and determined and who really hates the West. Someone like Putin leading the USA would be a real world disaster. But what politician in the US could commit terrorist acts on its own citizens to get to power?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016...artment-house-bombings-was-putin-responsible/


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> Trump is harmless. Most of the world already figured out that he is mostly bluff. Of course he is a man of no moral integrity, but he is too chaotic, clueless and aimless to do any real damage. On the other hand Putin is a psychopath, who is intelligent and determined and who really hates the West. Someone like Putin leading the USA would be a real world disaster. But what politician in the US could commit terrorist acts on its own citizens to get to power?
> https://www.nationalreview.com/2016...artment-house-bombings-was-putin-responsible/


Was Yeltsin harmless? In a way yes, a bumbling, drunk, populist who was nominally for the well being of normal Russians. But his government mismanaged the economy, destroyed faith in democracy and allowed the transfer of vast wealth to the oligarchs at the expense of ordinary people. Just like our Trump.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> So, philanthropy, huh?


Yes. Our gift is the truth.


----------



## Guest

This is a great story about Chuck Feeney, the billionaire who was the inspiration for Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to give more philanthropically:
...............

According to this story from 2016, which ranked the biggest philanthropists in terms, not of total amount they have given, but what percentage of their total net worth they have given, Feeney is first, and it isn't even close, having given 373,000% of his then current total net worth. And no, "373,000%" is not a typo. A long time ago, he secretly transferred most of his wealth to a philanthropic organization he had set up - again, his link to it was kept secret - and proceeded to give lavishly all over the world, while living on only a few million. Yes, a few million is a lot, but this man was a billionaire who chose to give the vast majority of his money away. Colleges were built by him, hospitals funded, etc.
........................

I apologize - apparently I can't post links to the Forbes articles. You can search for them yourselves.


----------



## KenOC

Strange Magic said:


> ...but this time managed to fall 3 million votes behind, before the warped, undemocratic electoral college system snatched victory for him from the jaws of defeat.


Yes, it looks like the T team actually went to the trouble to figure out how elections work in this country.* The C team evidently didn't. Like I say, a clever fellow!

*Hint: It's in the Constitution.


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> Yes, it looks like the T team actually went to the trouble to figure out how elections work in this country.* The C team evidently didn't. Like I say, a clever fellow!
> 
> *Hint: It's in the Constitution.


Everybody knows that, as you know. Trump got lucky, amazing even himself that he "won" though 3 million votes down. This, like Dubbya's ''victory" with its attendant devastating consequences, represents the strongest possible argument for correcting the archaic undemocratic electoral college anachronism. Even I have put my powdered wig into mothballs. Maybe, if we don't bring the system into sync with democracy, we'll have a "victor" who is 10 million votes down. How corrupt is too corrupt? Even for the explainers, enablers, excusers?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Strange Magic said:


> Everybody knows that, as you know. Trump got lucky, amazing even himself that he "won" though 3 million votes down. This, like Dubbya's ''victory" with its attendant devastating consequences, represents the strongest possible argument for correcting the archaic undemocratic electoral college anachronism. Even I have put my powdered wig into mothballs. Maybe, if we don't bring the system into sync with democracy, we'll have a "victor" who is 10 million votes down. How corrupt is too corrupt? Even for the explainers, enablers, excusers?


No, you might want the popular vote to decide the president. I do not want New York and California deciding who is President.


----------



## Strange Magic

*Electoral College Fun Fact, 2016*

Even though Donald Trump was buried under millions of popular votes for Hillary Clinton, he eked out his electoral college "victory" by winning the electoral college votes of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania by a mere 85,000 votes total, the thinnest of margins in each state. This is democracy? As we remember, Trump's explanation was that he actually did sweep the national popular vote because those millions of votes giving Clinton her plurality were actually cast by illegal immigrants, brown people, aliens, probably rapists and drug addicts and smugglers.


----------



## Bulldog

The criticism of the electoral college is so transparent. If Clinton had been in Trump's position, the liberals/progressives wouldn't say a word against it.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> The criticism of the electoral college is so transparent. If Clinton had been in Trump's position, the liberals/progressives wouldn't say a word against it.


Yes and no.

The argument against it is that states which are a lock for one side or another get ignored and all campaigning focuses on a few otherwise insignificant "swing states" which happen to be near 50/50. It introduces nonlinearity into the system which makes some voters dramatically more influential than the great majority of voters. I consider the electoral college stupid, no matter who wins.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Strange Magic said:


> Even though Donald Trump was buried under millions of popular votes for Hillary Clinton, he eked out his electoral college "victory" by winning the electoral college votes of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania by a mere 85,000 votes total, the thinnest of margins in each state. This is democracy? As we remember, Trump's explanation was that he actually did sweep the national popular vote because those millions of votes giving Clinton her plurality were actually cast by illegal immigrants, brown people, aliens, probably rapists and drug addicts and smugglers.


We are a constitutional Republic not a democracy. I do not trust the vote count of California it has more registered voters than the number off people eligible to vote.


----------



## Guest

Johnnie Burgess said:


> We are a constitutional Republic not a democracy. I do not trust the vote count of California it has more registered voters than the number off people eligible to vote.


It is not a problem unique to California. Deleting legitimate voters who die or move to another jurisdiction is complicated. The fact that there are defunct voters still on the rolls doesn't prove that any fraud has taken place. No clear evidence has ever been produced that illegal voting happens in any significant numbers.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Baron Scarpia said:


> It is not a problem unique to California. Deleting legitimate voters who die or move to another jurisdiction is complicated. The fact that there are defunct voters still on the rolls doesn't prove that any fraud has taken place. No clear evidence has ever been produced that illegal voting happens in any significant numbers.


The problem is 100 percent of the voters are not registered to vote. So how can you have so many registered?


----------



## Guest

Johnnie Burgess said:


> The problem is 100 percent of the voters are not registered to vote. So how can you have so many registered?


Person legally X registers to vote in Los Angeles. Person X moves to Riverside and legally registers to vote in Riverside. The State of California does not have a system in place to automatically cancel the redundant registration in Los Angeles. Person Y legally registers to vote in Riverside, Person Y moves to Los Angeles and legally registers to vote in Los Angeles. California does not have a system in place to automatically cancel the redundant registration in Riverside. As a result Los Angeles and Riverside can have more voters on their rolls than actually live in the jurisdiction. You could hypothesize that this could be exploited. It doesn't generally result in fraud because people don't typically get in their cars and vote at all of their old addresses.


----------



## Strange Magic

Bulldog said:


> The criticism of the electoral college is so transparent. If Clinton had been in Trump's position, the liberals/progressives wouldn't say a word against it.


I thought I was occasionally cynical. But some here raise cynicism to a high art. Can there not be actual, legitimate criticism of the electoral collage system in the 21st century? I may be older than some chronologically, but this dark supposition of near-universal malignity makes me seem like a flower child again. I'll bet people have thought the electoral college system anti-democratic for quite some time now, regardless of whose ox is gored. Some people also believe gerrymandering congressional districts is inherently wrong, whether their party comes out ahead or behind. Are they dreamers? idiots?


----------



## KenOC

Watched the Democratic primary debates tonight. How did they come up with such a collection of lightweights? It seems sad that Trump apparently has so little to worry about.


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> Watched the Democratic primary debates tonight. How did they come up with such a collection of lightweights? It seems sad that Trump apparently has so little to worry about.


Good old Ken! I love the work you are doing to legitimize political discussion, along with contentious scientific issues, upstairs here in the Community Forum. I soon expect to see you beginning threads--good substantial threads--on religious issues: atheism, Catholicism: Right or Wrong?, Scientology v. Mormonism, Does Allah hate Muslims?, etc. We can shut down the Groups , thanks to your lead, and have those free, frank discussions here where they clearly belong. I'll work within either framework.


----------



## Jacck

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/12/border-wall-organ-pipe-cactus-arizona
if the democratic successor to Trump will be anything like Trump, he will demolish everything that Trump has built, including the fence. Just like Trump demolished everything that Obama built, including a fully functional Iran deal, that took a decade to negotiate, so that he himself could get a better "deal". The fact is that his foreign policy is a total and absolute failure on all fronts. But he did one good thing - to challenge China, which was absolutely necessary. If there was someone with a little bit more diplomatic skills, he could have gained the EU too to coordinate. The problem with China is not some silly tariffs (that is what they let Trump believe), but that it is a totalitarian state with an ambition to become the world leader. It stole and continues stealing western technologies to close the technological gap, and all of this was financed by western greed, which allowed the China to function as a world factory for several decades. The fact is, that Xi is not much better than Putin. It is best to lump these two together and let them devour each other. 
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/coming-china-russia-split-76396


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/12/border-wall-organ-pipe-cactus-arizona
> if the democratic successor to Trump will be anything like Trump, he will demolish everything that Trump has built, including the fence. Just like Trump demolished everything that Obama built, including a fully functional Iran deal, that took a decade to negotiate, so that he himself could get a better "deal". The fact is that his foreign policy is a total and absolute failure on all fronts. But he did one good thing - to challenge China, which was absolutely necessary. If there was someone with a little bit more diplomatic skills, he could have gained the EU too to coordinate. The problem with China is not some silly tariffs (that is what they let Trump believe), but that it is a totalitarian state with an ambition to become the world leader. It stole and continues stealing western technologies to close the technological gap, and all of this was financed by western greed, which allowed the China to function as a world factory for several decades. The fact is, that Xi is not much better than Putin. It is best to lump these two together and let them devour each other.
> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/coming-china-russia-split-76396


I generally agree, except for the conceit that China's technical success consists of _merely _stealing western technology. You can't steal a car unless you know how to drive it. For years the best science and technology students from China would study in the U.S. and stay. Now with the U.S. eviscerating its own science and technology infrastructure and China spending massively to build up its own, those students are returning to China and bringing their expertise (along with trade secrets) with them. Yes China is using industrial espionage and other heavy handed tactics to try to gain an advantage, but at some point there will be nothing here that they need.


----------



## Jacck

Baron Scarpia said:


> I generally agree, except for the conceit that China's technical success consists of _merely _stealing western technology. You can't steal a car unless you know how to drive it. For years the best science and technology students from China would study in the U.S. and stay. Now with the U.S. eviscerating its own science and technology infrastructure and China spending massively to build up its own, those students are returning to China and bringing their expertise (along with trade secrets) with them. Yes China is using industrial espionage and other heavy handed tactics to try to gain an advantage, but at some point there will be nothing here that they need.


yes, the threat from China is mostly technological
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2019-09-12/counter-china-out-invent-it
the US academia is now crippled by this diversity cult, which thinks it is more important to hire by gender and skin color then by merit, thus reducing its competitivness and the right cuts finances for research. Neither the left nor the right has any strategic policy. And if the technology is researched, it should be carefully guarded from Chinese spies. I am not sure if it is a good idea to let Chinese students come to the US to study. I think only people from democratic countries should be allowed to study in the West, because those from the totalitarian states are mostly spies or complicit with the regime. But it is probably too late for that. I am still convinced that these dictatorial regimes are ultimately less productive than democratic societies and that the centrally planned mismanaging will hinder China a lot. So far they have invented nothing really fundamental. The 5G is just an extension of existing technologies.


----------



## Jacck

and Xi is also not such a great leader. He became too arrogant too soon. He should have guarded himself for 2 more decades. I saw some documentary about him, and they showed some footages of his speeches when he was much younger and not yet leader of China (thus showing his real opinions). He is a nationalist who hates the west, now hiding behind fake smiles. It is not yet too late to counter China, withdraw all western investments from China and relocate to India and Indonesia
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/09/05/china-inflicting-world-defeats-disguised-win-win-victories/


----------



## Bulldog

Strange Magic said:


> I thought I was occasionally cynical. But some here raise cynicism to a high art. Can there not be actual, legitimate criticism of the electoral collage system in the 21st century?


Of course, but the criticism ramped up greatly when Trump won the election. So much of what's going on in the USA is a reaction to Trump. He has had more impact on the country and the world in his first two years than Obama had in 8 years. It's rather depressing.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> yes, the threat from China is mostly technological
> https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2019-09-12/counter-china-out-invent-it
> the US academia is now crippled by this diversity cult, which thinks it is more important to hire by gender and skin color then by merit, thus reducing its competitivness and the right cuts finances for research. Neither the left nor the right has any strategic policy. And if the technology is researched, it should be carefully guarded from Chinese spies. I am not sure if it is a good idea to let Chinese students come to the US to study. I think only people from democratic countries should be allowed to study in the West, because those from the totalitarian states are mostly spies or complicit with the regime. But it is probably too late for that. I am still convinced that these dictatorial regimes are ultimately less productive than democratic societies and that the centrally planned mismanaging will hinder China a lot. So far they have invented nothing really fundamental. The 5G is just an extension of existing technologies.


Based on direct experience in hiring, I can say that the claim that US science academia is in any way negatively affected by the desire to promote diversity is entirely unjustified. If "diversity" comes into play it at all, it is to differentiate between two candidates that are perceived as equally qualified. At my institution researchers from underrepresented groups were among the most outstanding performers. The problem US academic research has is dramatic funding cuts, resulting in the old guard protecting its territory and up and coming researchers finding a scorched earth funding landscape.

If you try to eliminate Chinese students, the U.S. system would collapse. The U.S. primary education system is incapable of producing qualified science students.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Baron Scarpia said:


> Based on direct experience in hiring, I can say that the claim that US science academia is in any way negatively affected by the desire to promote diversity is entirely unjustified. If "diversity" comes into play it at all, it is to differentiate between two candidates that are perceived as equally qualified. At my institution researchers from underrepresented groups were among the most outstanding performers. The problem US academic research has is dramatic funding cuts, resulting in the old guard protecting its territory and up and coming researchers finding a scorched earth funding landscape.
> 
> If you try to eliminate Chinese students, the U.S. system would collapse. The U.S. primary education system is incapable of producing qualified science students.


So we just allow them to come here and steal technology from us.


----------



## Bulldog

Johnnie Burgess said:


> So we just allow them to come here and steal technology from us.


We are a generous country; Trump would say way too generous.


----------



## Guest

Johnnie Burgess said:


> So we just allow them to come here and steal technology from us.


You can accuse them of stealing what they created. They come here, do great work, create valuable technology, and when their visas are not renewed and they have to return, of course they remember what they learned and created. It is our stupidity to make it difficult for them to stay. Without immigrant scientists and technologists the U.S. would not be a technology leader at all.


----------



## Jacck

Baron Scarpia said:


> If you try to eliminate Chinese students, the U.S. system would collapse. The U.S. primary education system is incapable of producing qualified science students.





Baron Scarpia said:


> You can accuse them of stealing what they created. They come here, do great work, create valuable technology, and when their visas are not renewed and they have to return, of course they remember what they learned and created. It is our stupidity to make it difficult for them to stay. Without immigrant scientists and technologists the U.S. would not be a technology leader at all.


you should treat China as an enemy. They are not going to show any gratitude after they gain the upper hand, and once they gain the upper hand, they will jealously guard their know-how and not share it with the westerners, just like they guarded their silk production secrets and the sharing of those secrets was punishable by death. China is employing huge armies of hackers and spies to steal military and industrial secrets
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/t...tary-growing-super-powerful-by-stealing-18677
and sending armies of students abroad to bring know-how back to China. If the primary education system is the problem, then reform it.


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> You can accuse them of stealing what they created. They come here, do great work, create valuable technology, and when their visas are not renewed and they have to return, of course they remember what they learned and created. It is our stupidity to make it difficult for them to stay. Without immigrant scientists and technologists the U.S. would not be a technology leader at all.


Those are some awful big assertions. Seriously, all new technology is thanks to immigrant labor? I doubt it. And regardless whether it is true, there are patents in place. China ignores international patent law. People change employment all the time. But patent laws prevent them from simply reproducing what they did at another company. The issue is not that Chinese are coming here and learning how to build things. The issue is that they return to China and purposely violate patent law. What is your solution? Prevent any Chinese person from ever being able to return to their home country for fear they will engage in industrial espionage? Or never let them come here in the first place?


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> Based on direct experience in hiring, I can say that the claim that US science academia is in any way negatively affected by the desire to promote diversity is entirely unjustified. If "diversity" comes into play it at all, it is to differentiate between two candidates that are perceived as equally qualified. At my institution researchers from underrepresented groups were among the most outstanding performers. The problem US academic research has is dramatic funding cuts, resulting in the old guard protecting its territory and up and coming researchers finding a scorched earth funding landscape.
> 
> If you try to eliminate Chinese students, the U.S. system would collapse. The U.S. primary education system is incapable of producing qualified science students.


Given that I am a scientist who came through the U.S. system, have been in academic science since 1997, and have seen countless numbers of both foreign and American students enter, and successfully complete, training to become scientists, your final statement is utter crap. There are many Chinese scientists, it is true. They are by no means a majority. A great many end up just like others, working as postdocs and staff in larger labs. I don't know where you claim to get your data, but I am suspicious of your source.


----------



## Guest

Bravo. There's a great deal of conspiracy theory, sadly, in some of these comments. They need to stop reading "The Guardian", read more widely and that written for and by grown-ups.


----------

