Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
And Iran can save $80 million by killing the guy that tries to collect
How Colleges Dupe Parents And Taxpayers
Colleges have been around for centuries. College students have also been around for centuries. Yet, college administrators assume that today's students have needs that were unknown to their predecessors. Those needs include diversity and equity personnel, with massive budgets to accommodate.
According to Minding the Campus, Penn State University's Office of Vice Provost for Educational Equity employs 66 staff members. The University of Michigan currently employs a diversity staff of 93 full-time diversity administrators, officers, directors, vice provosts, deans, consultants, specialists, investigators, managers, executive assistants, administrative assistants, analysts and coordinators. Amherst College, with a student body of 1,800 students employs 19 diversity people. Top college diversity bureaucrats earn salaries six figures, in some cases approaching $500,000 per year. In the case of the University of Michigan, a quarter (26) of their diversity officers earn annual salaries of more than $100,000. If you add generous fringe benefits and other expenses, you could easily be talking about $13 million a year in diversity costs. The Economist reports that University of California, Berkeley, has 175 diversity bureaucrats.
Diversity officials are a growing part of a college bureaucracy structure that outnumbers faculty by 2 to 2.5 depending on the college. According to "The Campus Diversity Swarm," an article from Mark Pulliam, a contributing editor at Law and Liberty, which appeared in the City Journal (10/10/2018), diversity people assist in the cultivation of imaginary grievances of an ever-growing number of "oppressed" groups. Pulliam writes:
"The mission of campus diversity officers is self-perpetuating. Affirmative action (i.e., racial and ethnic preferences in admissions) leads to grievance studies. Increased recognition of LGBTQ rights requires ever-greater accommodation by the rest of the student body. Protecting 'vulnerable' groups from 'hate speech' and 'microaggressions' requires speech codes and bias-response teams (staffed by diversocrats). Complaints must be investigated and adjudicated (by diversocrats). Fighting 'toxic masculinity' and combating an imaginary epidemic of campus sexual assault necessitate consent protocols, training, and hearing procedures -- more work for an always-growing diversocrat cadre. Each newly recognized problem leads to a call for more programs and staffing."
Campus diversity people have developed their own professional organization -- the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. They hold annual conferences -- the last one in Philadelphia. The NADOHE has developed standards for professional practice and a political agenda, plus a Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, which is published by the American Psychological Association.
One wonders just how far spineless college administrators will go when it comes to caving in to the demands of campus snowflakes who have been taught that they must be protected against words, events and deeds that do not fully conform to their extremely limited, narrow-minded beliefs built on sheer delusion. Generosity demands that we forgive these precious snowflakes and hope that they eventually grow up. The real problem is with people assumed to be grown-ups -- college professors and administrators -- who serve their self-interest by tolerating and giving aid and comfort to our aberrant youth. Unless the cycle of promoting and nursing imaginary grievances is ended, diversity bureaucracies will take over our colleges and universities, supplanting altogether the goal of higher education.
"Diversity" is the highest goal of students and professors who openly detest those with whom they disagree. These people support the very antithesis of higher education with their withering attacks on free speech. Both in and out of academia, the content of a man's character is no longer as important as the color of his skin, his sex, his sexual preferences or his political loyalties. That's a vision that spells tragedy for our nation.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/how-colleges-dupe-parents-and-taxpayers
How Colleges Dupe Parents And Taxpayers
Colleges have been around for centuries. College students have also been around for centuries. Yet, college administrators assume that today's students have needs that were unknown to their predecessors. Those needs include diversity and equity personnel, with massive budgets to accommodate.
According to Minding the Campus, Penn State University's Office of Vice Provost for Educational Equity employs 66 staff members. The University of Michigan currently employs a diversity staff of 93 full-time diversity administrators, officers, directors, vice provosts, deans, consultants, specialists, investigators, managers, executive assistants, administrative assistants, analysts and coordinators. Amherst College, with a student body of 1,800 students employs 19 diversity people. Top college diversity bureaucrats earn salaries six figures, in some cases approaching $500,000 per year. In the case of the University of Michigan, a quarter (26) of their diversity officers earn annual salaries of more than $100,000. If you add generous fringe benefits and other expenses, you could easily be talking about $13 million a year in diversity costs. The Economist reports that University of California, Berkeley, has 175 diversity bureaucrats.
Diversity officials are a growing part of a college bureaucracy structure that outnumbers faculty by 2 to 2.5 depending on the college. According to "The Campus Diversity Swarm," an article from Mark Pulliam, a contributing editor at Law and Liberty, which appeared in the City Journal (10/10/2018), diversity people assist in the cultivation of imaginary grievances of an ever-growing number of "oppressed" groups. Pulliam writes:
"The mission of campus diversity officers is self-perpetuating. Affirmative action (i.e., racial and ethnic preferences in admissions) leads to grievance studies. Increased recognition of LGBTQ rights requires ever-greater accommodation by the rest of the student body. Protecting 'vulnerable' groups from 'hate speech' and 'microaggressions' requires speech codes and bias-response teams (staffed by diversocrats). Complaints must be investigated and adjudicated (by diversocrats). Fighting 'toxic masculinity' and combating an imaginary epidemic of campus sexual assault necessitate consent protocols, training, and hearing procedures -- more work for an always-growing diversocrat cadre. Each newly recognized problem leads to a call for more programs and staffing."
Campus diversity people have developed their own professional organization -- the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. They hold annual conferences -- the last one in Philadelphia. The NADOHE has developed standards for professional practice and a political agenda, plus a Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, which is published by the American Psychological Association.
One wonders just how far spineless college administrators will go when it comes to caving in to the demands of campus snowflakes who have been taught that they must be protected against words, events and deeds that do not fully conform to their extremely limited, narrow-minded beliefs built on sheer delusion. Generosity demands that we forgive these precious snowflakes and hope that they eventually grow up. The real problem is with people assumed to be grown-ups -- college professors and administrators -- who serve their self-interest by tolerating and giving aid and comfort to our aberrant youth. Unless the cycle of promoting and nursing imaginary grievances is ended, diversity bureaucracies will take over our colleges and universities, supplanting altogether the goal of higher education.
"Diversity" is the highest goal of students and professors who openly detest those with whom they disagree. These people support the very antithesis of higher education with their withering attacks on free speech. Both in and out of academia, the content of a man's character is no longer as important as the color of his skin, his sex, his sexual preferences or his political loyalties. That's a vision that spells tragedy for our nation.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/how-colleges-dupe-parents-and-taxpayers
" suspensions for willful defiance are disproportionately used against students of color."
Has it ever occurred to them WHY that's the case ???
I think he should continue to post his junk...
He reinforces my decision why I will vote for Trump
He reminds me of Maxine Waters. Collectively they are destroying the Democratic Party.
" OAN news, which is Sponsored by Russia..."
Did you read this news item?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=153010694
Understanding Why There's No FBI Whistleblowers Outlining Institutional Corruption
To understand why there’s no-one in the administrative mid-tier of the FBI acting in a whistle-blowing capacity requires a background perspective looking at the totality of corruption. The institutions are protecting themselves; and yes, that protection applies to the internal dynamics.
Former DAG Rod Rosenstein was dirty. He might not have started out dirty, but his actions in office created a dirty mess. Rosenstein facilitated the McCabe operation against Trump during the May 16th, 2017, White House FBI sting against Trump with Mueller. Rosenstein also facilitated the special counsel (writ large), and provided three scope memos to expand the corrupt investigation of President Trump. According to the inaction of AG Bill Barr, we’re not allowed to see those authorizing scope memos.
Additionally, despite knowing the Trump investigation held a false predicate, Rosenstein signed the 3rd renewal of a fraudulent FISA application. Worse yet, even if Rosenstein was caught up by corruption around him, he did nothing to stop the fraud once identified.
Why is Rosenstein a key inflection point? Because Rod Rosenstein recommended current FBI Director Christopher Wray to President Trump. POTUS then allowed Wray, as he does all department heads, to select his deputy – Wray chose David Bowditch.
Keep in mind the National Security Division of the DOJ (DOJ-NSD) was/is the epicenter of many corrupt activities, including filing the fraudulent FISA application, manipulating interpretations of law for FARA (§901) violations, and doing all of this while denying any inspector general oversight. As FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer recently noted, the DOJ-NSD is positioned as a rogue legal arm of the U.S. intelligence apparatus.
FBI Director Wray selected the former head of DOJ-NSD to become the lead lawyer for the FBI, chief legal counsel Dana Boente.
So from Rosenstein we got: Chris Wray, David Bowditch, Dana Boente and another dubious DOJ recommendation, DC U.S. Attorney Jessie K Liu (ref. Awan Bros and James Wolfe). Keep this in mind moving forward.
Another career corrupt-o-crat to come out of the DOJ-NSD, who was also involved in the fraudulent legal filings was the lead lawyer for the division, Michael Atkinson.
Atkinson was moved from DOJ-NSD to become the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG). Yes, the same IGIC who manipulated the rules and regulations to allow the hearsay Ukraine CIA “whistleblower”, Eric Ciaramella.
What we end up with is a brutally obvious, convoluted, network of corrupt officials; each carrying an independent reason to cover their institutional asses… each individual interest forms a collective fraudulent scheme inside the machinery of the FBI apparatus.
The motive behind the DOJ/FBI effort to cover for Senate Intelligence Committee Security Director James Wolfe’s unlawful classified information leaks, is connected to this network and expands into the SSCI Chairman (Richard Burr) and Vice-Chair Mark Warner.
Security Director Wolfe was working on instructions from inside the committee itself; his leak of the FISA application to journalist Ali Watkins was in alignment with the intents/motives of the SSCI in March 2017. Dirty politicians corrupting staff.
The DOJ and FBI didn’t charge James Wolfe with the leaking of classified information because it would have exposed corruption within the SSCI. Wolfe was prepared to call the senators in his defense…. this could not be allowed. The SSCI has oversight over the intelligence community to include the FBI, DOJ, DOJ-NSD, CIA, ODNI etc.
How does all of this corruption come together?…. More importantly how does this level of institutional corruption create the inability of FBI whistle-blowers to come forward?
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is the approver for any nominations for any executive appointed position involving the intelligence community.
If the senate intel committee wants to block the nomination, likely adverse to their interests, they can… simply, they don’t take it up. (See Trump’s attempt to appoint Representative John Ratcliffe as ODNI as an example.)
However, along with approving Wray and Bowditch, the SSCI also approved former DOJ-NSD legal counsel Michael Atkinson to become Intelligence Community Inspector General. Who would an honest intelligence whistle-blower have to go through? Dirty Michael Atkinson.
The same dirty Michael Atkinson who was the top legal counsel to the head of the DOJ-NSD when the corrupt DOJ-NSD agency operations were ongoing. See how the whistle-blower block works?
Aligned interests – The Senate Intel Committee uses the placement of Atkinson to block any whistle-blower action that would be adverse to their interests. Whistle-blowers ain’t stupid, they know what surrounds them.
Senator Mark Warner and Senator Richard Burr are dirty. So too is ICIG Atkinson, FBI Director Chris Wray, FBI Deputy Director David Bowditch and FBI Legal Counsel Dana Boente.
Robert Mueller was dirty. Rod Rosenstein was dirty. All of the special counsel lawyers including Andrew Weissmann and Brandon Van Grack (Flynn prosecutor) are dirty. Additionally Mueller’s lead FBI Agent David Archey, who was promoted after the corrupt special counsel investigation to be the head of the Virginia FBI field office, dirty.
FBI official David Archey, like ICIG Michael Atkinson, conveniently put into a place where he can run cover for FBI operations that might expose dirty DC and Virgina-based FBI activities. See how that works?
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/understanding-why-theres-no-fbi-whistleblowers-outlining-institutional-corruption
Maddow Meltdown: In Defense To OAN Lawsuit, Host Argues Her Words Are Not Facts
Back in September, we reported that TV network OAN had filed a lawsuit against Rachel Maddow for the time the host said that OAN “really, literally is paid Russian propaganda.”
Now, Maddow finds herself having to come up with a defense for her statement in court. And she has also apparently hired Lionel Hutz as her legal adviser.
According to Culttture, her lawyers argued in a recent motion that "…the liberal host was clearly offering up her ‘own unique expression’ of her views to capture what she saw as the ‘ridiculous’ nature of the undisputed facts. Her comment, therefore, is a quintessential statement ‘of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false."
Oh, it's capable of being proved false, alright. Maddow had previously claimed, on air, about one of OAN's reporters:
“In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America is really literally is paid Russian propaganda,” and added, “Their on-air politics reporter (Kristian Rouz) is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”
The testimony of UC Santa Barbara linguistics professor Stefan Thomas Gries, however, stands at odds with Maddow's defense. Gries said: “It is very unlikely that an average or reasonable/ordinary viewer would consider the sentence in question to be a statement of opinion.”
Gries continued: “I am the second most widely-cited cognitive linguist and sixth most widely-cited living corpus linguist. The field of cognitive linguistics draws from both linguistics and psychology and studies how language interacts with cognition.”
OAN had filed the defamation suit in federal court in San Diego, according to AP. OAN is a small, family owned conservative network that is based in San Diego and has received favorable Tweets from the President. It is seen as a competitor to Fox News.
OAN's lawsuit claims that Maddow's comments were retaliation after OAN President Charles Herring accused Comcast of censorship. The suit said that Comcast refuses to carry its channel because “counters the liberal politics of Comcast’s own news channel, MSNBC.”
It was about a week after Herring e-mailed a Comcast executive when Maddow opened her show by referring to a Daily Beast report that claimed an OAN employee also worked for Sputnik News, which has ties to the Russian government.
Maddow said: “In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”
Except Maddow, likely still upset from spending 3 years trying to promulgate a Russian hoax that didn't exist, didn't quite get her facts straight. Big surprise.
https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/maddow-meltdown-defense-oan-lawsuit-host-argues-her-words-are-not-facts
Maddow Meltdown: In Defense To OAN Lawsuit, Host Argues Her Words Are Not Facts
Back in September, we reported that TV network OAN had filed a lawsuit against Rachel Maddow for the time the host said that OAN “really, literally is paid Russian propaganda.”
Now, Maddow finds herself having to come up with a defense for her statement in court. And she has also apparently hired Lionel Hutz as her legal adviser.
According to Culttture, her lawyers argued in a recent motion that "…the liberal host was clearly offering up her ‘own unique expression’ of her views to capture what she saw as the ‘ridiculous’ nature of the undisputed facts. Her comment, therefore, is a quintessential statement ‘of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false."
Oh, it's capable of being proved false, alright. Maddow had previously claimed, on air, about one of OAN's reporters:
“In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America is really literally is paid Russian propaganda,” and added, “Their on-air politics reporter (Kristian Rouz) is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”
The testimony of UC Santa Barbara linguistics professor Stefan Thomas Gries, however, stands at odds with Maddow's defense. Gries said: “It is very unlikely that an average or reasonable/ordinary viewer would consider the sentence in question to be a statement of opinion.”
Gries continued: “I am the second most widely-cited cognitive linguist and sixth most widely-cited living corpus linguist. The field of cognitive linguistics draws from both linguistics and psychology and studies how language interacts with cognition.”
OAN had filed the defamation suit in federal court in San Diego, according to AP. OAN is a small, family owned conservative network that is based in San Diego and has received favorable Tweets from the President. It is seen as a competitor to Fox News.
OAN's lawsuit claims that Maddow's comments were retaliation after OAN President Charles Herring accused Comcast of censorship. The suit said that Comcast refuses to carry its channel because “counters the liberal politics of Comcast’s own news channel, MSNBC.”
It was about a week after Herring e-mailed a Comcast executive when Maddow opened her show by referring to a Daily Beast report that claimed an OAN employee also worked for Sputnik News, which has ties to the Russian government.
Maddow said: “In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”
Except Maddow, likely still upset from spending 3 years trying to promulgate a Russian hoax that didn't exist, didn't quite get her facts straight. Big surprise.
https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/maddow-meltdown-defense-oan-lawsuit-host-argues-her-words-are-not-facts
Every time you respond to him he gets paid .25 cents.
He will go away if you ignore him.
The Great Cover Up Of The Biggest Scandal In American History
Joe diGenova has been talking about the seditious plot to overturn the 2016 election for at least a year, maybe longer. Unlike a lot of the people commenting on this in the mass media, he is not using it to sell books or boost his cable career. He also knows how the FBI and DOJ works from a practical matter. Being knowledgeable makes him a rare guy in the commentariat. Most of the people brought on as experts for the cable chat shows know very little about their alleged areas of expertise.
Regardless, he has been one of the most hawkish people on the Barr investigation, claiming that it is a real investigation with real criminal targets. In this recent radio interview he goes into the details of both the Barr investigation and the ongoing impeachment fiasco. He is a Trump partisan, so his opinions on impeachment are predictable, but his thoughts on the conspiracy are interesting. He probably has access to information from the Trump White House.
( I'm not able to provide the direct Youtube link but this is interesting...)
Santa Claus Accused Of Quid Pro Quo
For Giving Children Gifts In Exchange For Good Behavior
Legislators have begun to hold hearings on impeaching Santa Claus after an overheard conversation seemed to imply he was offering a quid pro quo: gifts in exchange for good behavior.
FBI agents spied on Claus at various malls as he repeatedly said things like, "Sure, I'll get you a pony. But first, I need you to do something for me... be a good little boy!"
The FBI was able to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Claus, because it's easier to get a FISA warrant than to get a Costco membership.
"Ho ho noooooo!" Santa Claus cried as investigators leaped out and cuffed him at a Dayton, OH mall. "Not good! Sad!"
"It was a perfect conversation," Claus said, defending himself in a series of fiery tweets.
"Absolutely perfect. I was simply talking to little Billy and asked him to keep tabs on his sister, Sally, who has been involved in some corruption. Who doesn't want to stop corruption? Did I offer Billy a new Nintendo Switch in exchange for his good behavior? Possibly. Am I planning on giving Sally coal because she's a little punk? Maybe. Where's my lawyer?"
Unfortunately, he was assigned a public defender, who turned out to be Rudy Giuliani.
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/santa-claus-accused-quid-pro-quo-giving-children-gifts-exchange-good-behavior
Santa Claus Accused Of Quid Pro Quo
For Giving Children Gifts In Exchange For Good Behavior
Legislators have begun to hold hearings on impeaching Santa Claus after an overheard conversation seemed to imply he was offering a quid pro quo: gifts in exchange for good behavior.
FBI agents spied on Claus at various malls as he repeatedly said things like, "Sure, I'll get you a pony. But first, I need you to do something for me... be a good little boy!"
The FBI was able to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Claus, because it's easier to get a FISA warrant than to get a Costco membership.
"Ho ho noooooo!" Santa Claus cried as investigators leaped out and cuffed him at a Dayton, OH mall. "Not good! Sad!"
"It was a perfect conversation," Claus said, defending himself in a series of fiery tweets.
"Absolutely perfect. I was simply talking to little Billy and asked him to keep tabs on his sister, Sally, who has been involved in some corruption. Who doesn't want to stop corruption? Did I offer Billy a new Nintendo Switch in exchange for his good behavior? Possibly. Am I planning on giving Sally coal because she's a little punk? Maybe. Where's my lawyer?"
Unfortunately, he was assigned a public defender, who turned out to be Rudy Giuliani.
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/santa-claus-accused-quid-pro-quo-giving-children-gifts-exchange-good-behavior
Sounds like they shudda put that stent in your brain instead !
Another redirect...
https://installworking.centersiteofupgradenow.best/lagek?lageks=-dkZUxGwRUN9I4xnaz9E8mCG38E-SjuD-c-PFTzDUcA.&cid=15766159291148198418276318697118865&sid=2502239-3509244738-0
Anyone have a solution for this?
It happens at various places on I-Hub. Stock specific boards and general discussion boards.
It might be part of an advertisement that has an imbedded redirect link.
This only happens when I'm on I-hub. I do not have this problem while i'm at other places on the internet.
I keep getting redirected to another web site.
https://upgradeinstall24.stablesystemnow.info/?b9zd1=uhfC6732o4tzEc0PMCnJDVohcfzmX-Y4zlkt_WBJojc.&cid=dv6e6b7d45210611ea8b0b0acbe2a01ec1d1c8d42972374ecf8ffe9b8e44d7f29704348338c8e51c0fff&sid=foxtrot-led-OSKBmzNU
and here...
https://ontrksoluts.best/osx/index.php?lpkey=15bd76cd610c27d687&clickid=63842h9gh9za3a79&uclick=17xru3lp#
Anything I can do to stop this? Tx
You are deflecting again....
What do you think about a president providing a modified birth certificate? Please stay on topic !
"True Americans care about the Constitution and the Rule of Law"
So what do you think about a guy that was elected president and posted a birth certificate that any kid with PhotoShop could see where it was modified in over 10 places. It was posted on Whitehouse.gov.
Don't deflect... provide a response to the question.
"So climate change is real"
Why does rising water equate to "climate change" ???
I always thought the reason for rising ocean water is because the farmers are pumping water out of the ground to water their crops and this water evaporates and comes down as rainfall raising the water level of the oceans.
Please explain what I have wrong about this theory.
CACC Automakers Offer Record Incentive Spending As Trillion Dollar Auto Bubble Becomes Unsustainable
More...
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/automakers-offer-record-incentive-spending-trillion-dollar-auto-bubble-becomes
CACC Automakers Offer Record Incentive Spending As Trillion Dollar Auto Bubble Becomes Unsustainable
More...
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/automakers-offer-record-incentive-spending-trillion-dollar-auto-bubble-becomes
"Dick’s found its sales growing significantly, quarter after quarter after quarter."
That Trump economy is amazing isn't it !
She usually has some really good ideas...
"Say, instead of forcing taxpayers to take on the burden of student debt, how about letting the colleges eat their own student loans? "
When America finally sees Obama’s college records he’ll be back in Kenya.
"Were you able to read the words? "
Yes... I checked everything really close
Nice upgrade to your cartoon today !
"I might add that there has been NO-dilution this year..."
I think that was covered here...
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=149027072
"It's truly funny watching you try and defend Trump each day..."
What won't be funny is the depression this country will experience if one of your socialists should become president.
South Africa's Race-Based Socialism
Twenty-five years since the election of Nelson Mandela as president of South Africa, the country remains home to some of the most market-invasive, race-based economic policies in the world.
At the heart of this system are provisions for Affirmative Action (AA) and unique statutory measures for Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). These laws are suffocating the South African economy.
AA and BEE developed in the context of post-apartheid South Africa. Affirmative Action is mandated by the Employment Equity Act of 1998, which mandates companies to alter their workforces until they reflect the racial composition of the local economically active population.
BEE was introduced formally in 2003 as the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act (BBBEE Act). It goes much further than AA, requiring companies in South Africa to structure their corporate ownership, boards, management, staff, procurement, and charity based on racial classification.
The "whiter" a company’s shareholders, board, management, employees and suppliers, the lower its BEE score (yes, there is an actual scorecard). The "blacker" a company, the higher its BEE score. In the mining industry, the BEE Charter (an industry regulation in terms of the B-BBEE Act) requires a 30% BEE shareholding in companies applying for a new mining right.
South Africans are still racially classified for BEE and AA purposes. The most favoured group is those classified as "black/African," regarded as the most disadvantaged during Apartheid, the unjust system of racially-applied laws that the government began dismantling nearly 30 years ago. The next most favoured groups are "coloureds" (a group descending from Europeans, indigenous Africans, and Indo-Malayans) and "indians" (descendants of Indian settlers). These groups are deemed to have been disadvantaged by Apartheid, but not as much as blacks were. The least favoured group for AA and BEE purposes is "whites," both Afrikaans- and English-speaking, who descend mainly from European settlers (or are recent European settlers themselves) who arrived in the region predominantly from the mid-17 th Century until the latter half of the 20th Century.
A Pernicious Form of Socialism
BEE is a system that erects new incentives and costs for certain economic transactions. It is intended to achieve a different allocation of labour and resources compared to what would arise in a purely free market, with more emphasis on peoples’ classified race and their political connections and less on the value of their product or service.
By reducing overall returns on capital while raising regime uncertainty, BEE increases investment risk and lowers levels of investment.1 Since productivity is a function of the depth and breadth of the capital structure, lower levels of quality capital investment (higher levels of consumption) under a BEE regime lead to further reductions in productivity.
Weak Economic Growth
Essentially, BEE results in capital misallocation and capital consumption and redistributes wealth from voluntarily-determined to politically-determined wealth-possessors. This process reduces the productive capacity of the economy and slows the rate of creation of valued goods and services.
South Africa has been one of the globe’s growth underperformers since it implemented BEE policies in 2004. In the chart below, we compare nominal GDP per capita denominated in dollars (based to 100 in 2005) across various emerging market and commodity-producing countries. South Africa’s GDP per capita grew by 15% in nominal dollar terms since 2005, while the mean of the sample (excluding South Africa) increased by 115% (i.e. more than doubled).
The net effect is wealth destruction and perpetuation of chronic, widespread poverty. South Africa’s per capita GDP, at around $6,000 in 2019, has not increased in inflation-adjusted terms in a quarter-century and is down about 10% since the introduction of BEE. Meanwhile, the mean increase in real per capita dollar GDP in our sample since 2004 has been around 70%3. If South Africa had grown in line with the sample mean since 2004, per capita GDP would be nearly double what it is today.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/south-africas-race-based-socialism
South Africa's Race-Based Socialism
Twenty-five years since the election of Nelson Mandela as president of South Africa, the country remains home to some of the most market-invasive, race-based economic policies in the world.
At the heart of this system are provisions for Affirmative Action (AA) and unique statutory measures for Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). These laws are suffocating the South African economy.
AA and BEE developed in the context of post-apartheid South Africa. Affirmative Action is mandated by the Employment Equity Act of 1998, which mandates companies to alter their workforces until they reflect the racial composition of the local economically active population.
BEE was introduced formally in 2003 as the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act (BBBEE Act). It goes much further than AA, requiring companies in South Africa to structure their corporate ownership, boards, management, staff, procurement, and charity based on racial classification.
The "whiter" a company’s shareholders, board, management, employees and suppliers, the lower its BEE score (yes, there is an actual scorecard). The "blacker" a company, the higher its BEE score. In the mining industry, the BEE Charter (an industry regulation in terms of the B-BBEE Act) requires a 30% BEE shareholding in companies applying for a new mining right.
South Africans are still racially classified for BEE and AA purposes. The most favoured group is those classified as "black/African," regarded as the most disadvantaged during Apartheid, the unjust system of racially-applied laws that the government began dismantling nearly 30 years ago. The next most favoured groups are "coloureds" (a group descending from Europeans, indigenous Africans, and Indo-Malayans) and "indians" (descendants of Indian settlers). These groups are deemed to have been disadvantaged by Apartheid, but not as much as blacks were. The least favoured group for AA and BEE purposes is "whites," both Afrikaans- and English-speaking, who descend mainly from European settlers (or are recent European settlers themselves) who arrived in the region predominantly from the mid-17 th Century until the latter half of the 20th Century.
A Pernicious Form of Socialism
BEE is a system that erects new incentives and costs for certain economic transactions. It is intended to achieve a different allocation of labour and resources compared to what would arise in a purely free market, with more emphasis on peoples’ classified race and their political connections and less on the value of their product or service.
By reducing overall returns on capital while raising regime uncertainty, BEE increases investment risk and lowers levels of investment.1 Since productivity is a function of the depth and breadth of the capital structure, lower levels of quality capital investment (higher levels of consumption) under a BEE regime lead to further reductions in productivity.
Weak Economic Growth
Essentially, BEE results in capital misallocation and capital consumption and redistributes wealth from voluntarily-determined to politically-determined wealth-possessors. This process reduces the productive capacity of the economy and slows the rate of creation of valued goods and services.
South Africa has been one of the globe’s growth underperformers since it implemented BEE policies in 2004. In the chart below, we compare nominal GDP per capita denominated in dollars (based to 100 in 2005) across various emerging market and commodity-producing countries. South Africa’s GDP per capita grew by 15% in nominal dollar terms since 2005, while the mean of the sample (excluding South Africa) increased by 115% (i.e. more than doubled).
The net effect is wealth destruction and perpetuation of chronic, widespread poverty. South Africa’s per capita GDP, at around $6,000 in 2019, has not increased in inflation-adjusted terms in a quarter-century and is down about 10% since the introduction of BEE. Meanwhile, the mean increase in real per capita dollar GDP in our sample since 2004 has been around 70%3. If South Africa had grown in line with the sample mean since 2004, per capita GDP would be nearly double what it is today.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/south-africas-race-based-socialism
Another one from the bizarro file
Watch: Gender Studies Professor Blames Trump For Black Female Obesity
Watch the video at :
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/watch-gender-studies-professor-blames-trump-black-female-obesity
Infuriating Report Reveals DMVs Across The US Are Selling Your Personal Info & Making Millions
Anyone who has ever had to stand in a long line to pay the state for the privilege of renewing your driver’s license knows how infuriating that experience can be. The bureaucratic high-horse mentality of many of the DMV workers is so brazen and overt that DMVs have earned a notoriously horrid reputation in every state. But more infuriating than long lines and power-tripping bureaucrats, however, it the fact that according to a new report, these power-tripping bureaucrats are selling your data to private entities.
And they are making millions doing it.
According to a scathing report from Motherboard, government-run motor vehicle departments across the country are taking your personal information—entrusted solely to them by you—and selling it to the highest bidder. These sales are netting DMVs across the county millions in profits.
Ever wonder where all these spam calls for credit cards and vehicle warranties come from? Well now you have likely found the culprit, and it’s the government.
While it is understood that DMVs can sell information for legitimate purposes to insurance companies, many of these sales were to nefarious entities, according to the report.
When most people go to the DMV, they most likely think that their information is safe. However, according to the report, which was comprised of multiple public records requests, after you give your personal information to the DMV, they turn around and sell it to almost anyone who asks.
This extremely personal information is easily obtained by private investigators, credit agencies, and data leeching companies like LexisNexis. According to its website, LexisNexis sells dozens of various reports to anyone who wants it, all of which contain information on you.
“You need to learn what they’ve been doing, when they’ve been doing it, who they’ve been doing it with and how long it has been going on. You need to see proof with your own eyes,” says the website of Integrity Investigations, one private investigator company that purchases data from DMVs.
Integrity Investigations advertises to its customers that they are able to obtain this data to aid them in the surveillance of spouses or significant others to attempt to catch them cheating. While this may seem benign, this information could be sold to people who’ve fled abusive relationships and this is the only way to keep their whereabouts secret.
“The selling of personally identifying information to third parties is broadly a privacy issue for all and specifically a safety issue for survivors of abuse, including domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and trafficking,” Erica Olsen, director of Safety Net at the National Network to End Domestic Violence, told Motherboard in an email.
“For survivors, their safety may depend on their ability to keep this type of information private.”
While many will find this information infuriating, everything these DMVs are doing is entirely legal and falls under the ironically titled law, the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) of 1994. As Motherboard points out, the DPPA was created in 1994 after a private investigator, hired by a stalker, obtained the address of actress Rebecca Schaeffer from a DMV. The stalker went on to murder Schaeffer. The purpose of the law was to restrict access to DMV data, but it included a wide range of exemptions, including for the sale to private investigators.
“The DPPA is one of several federal laws that should now be updated,” Marc Rotenberg, president and executive director of privacy activism group EPIC, wrote in an email to Vice. “I would certainly reduce the number of loopholes,” he added, referring to how the law might be changed.
When the government, who pretends to protect consumers and citizens by going after those who steal and abuse our data, gets in bed with these very same people, something has gone serious wrong—or right, if you are the state.
What this case illustrates is that nothing is sacred when it comes to government. These institutions all claim to exist to protect our privacy and our data while at the same time selling us out at the drop of a hat. Land of the free? More like land of the exploited tax cattle whose existence is but a battery in the machine of tyranny and technocracy.
https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/infuriating-report-reveals-dmvs-across-us-are-selling-your-personal-info-making
Pelosi Unloads On Nadler; Tells Him To Drop 'Moby Dick'-Like Impeachment Obsession
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler last week over his 'Moby Dick'-like obsession with impeaching President Trump - days before Trump's 2016 campaign manager Corey Lewandowski wiped the floor with Congressional Democrats during a contentious five-hour hearing on Tuesday in front of Nadler's panel.
Pelosi's comments came during a closed-door Capitol Hill meeting of Democrats last week, where she complained that Judiciary Committee aides have advanced the impeachment push "far beyond where the House Democratic Caucus stands," according to Politico.
"And you can feel free to leak this," Pelosi added, according to several people who were there.
It was the latest sign of the widening schism between Pelosi and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, two longtime allies who are increasingly in conflict over where to guide the party at one of its most critical moments.
Both Pelosi and Nadler, who have served in the House together for more than 25 years, insist their relationship remains strong. But their rift over impeachment is getting harder and harder to paper over amid Democrats’ flailing messaging on the topic and a growing divide in the caucus. -Politico
And while Pelosi aides told Politico that Nadler has coordinated with her office on investigations, legal strategy and messaging - and Pelosi has signed off on all the Judiciary Committee's court filings against Trump, the House Speaker has been expressing skepticism for months that a successful impeachment in the House would only lead to "exonerating" Trump on the campaign trail after the effort dies in the GOP-led Senate.
Pelosi has privately clashed with Nadler over his aggressive impeachment agenda, arguing the public does not support it and it does not have the 218 votes to pass on the House floor. So far, about 137 Democrats say they would vote to open an official impeachment inquiry.
...
The relationship between the two veteran lawmakers has become strained. While Pelosi has blocked the House from formally voting to open an impeachment inquiry, Nadler declared he is authorized to begin one even without a House vote. -Washington Examiner
"Am I concerned? The answer is yes!," Florida Democratic Rep. Donna Shalala told the Washington Examiner. "In my district, I’m not getting asked about impeachment. I’m being asked about healthcare, I’m being asked about the environment, and about infrastructure. It’s not like around the country they are thinking about impeachment. It’s a Washington phenomenon as far as I can tell."
More...
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/pelosi-unloads-nadler-tells-him-drop-moby-dick-impeachment-obsession
Imran Awan... they let him off the hook! Apparently he had enough dirt on everybody that no one dared to go after him.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imran_Awan
The problem is over capacity. The large producers have already made the infrastructure investments and are able to provide more lithium with little to no additional cost.
You can't rely on someone else to safeguard your assets. If you have precious metals such as gold or silver the only answer is that you have to maintain actual possession yourself. There are endless stories of investor accounts mysteriously vanishing and can not be recovered.
Immigrant Student Loses Miss World Title For Refusing To Try On A Hijab
Beauty pageant officials wanted this outspoken winner to be quiet and submissive. Nevertheless, she persisted.
University of Michigan student Kathy Zhu is savaging the Miss World America competition for revoking her Miss Michigan title just a day after crowning her, the Detroit News reports.
“So you’re telling me that it’s now just a fashion accessory and not a religious thing?” Zhu had tweeted. “Or are you just trying to get women used to being oppressed under Islam?”
Her comments prompted a Twitter fight and at least one call for expulsion, but officials ultimately concluded that none of the involved students’ actions violated the university’s rules of conduct.
In a text exchange posted online, a beauty pageant organizer also raised concerns with an October 2017 tweet by Zhu, who wrote: “Did you know the majority of black deaths are caused by other blacks? Fix problems within your own community first before blaming others.”
Zhu wrote back a fiery email to the “gullible” competition officials, explaining the context of her posts:
What’s “insensitive” is that women in the middle east are getting STONED TO DEATH for refusing to obey their husband’s orders to wear hijabs.
A muslim woman tried to FORCIBLY put a hijab on my head without my permission. […] Are the people in MWA implying that they advocate for the punishment of women who refuse to wear a hijab?
If this was a catholic rosary that someone forced me to try on and I refused, people would not have even bat [sic] an eye.
More...
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-20/immigrant-student-loses-miss-world-title-refusing-try-hijab
How A Leftist Echo Chamber Became The New Norm On Campus
A pronounced and growing hostility to free markets has turned the academic humanities into an ideological echo chamber. Over the past 20 years, faculty in English, history, foreign languages, and philosophy have shifted sharply to the political left, resulting in a nearly complete exclusion of dissenting perspectives from these fields.
My previous investigation of this trend found that the most biased majors on campus are now struggling to attract new students, whereas disciplines with greater balance are seeing their majors increase. Ideological homogeneity may comfort faculty and students who already share in a common set of beliefs, but it’s also off-putting to the nearly two-thirds of incoming college freshmen who do not hail from the political left.
A new study of student attitudes about socialism and capitalism provides strong confirmation of the echo chamber effect taking hold of these same disciplines.
College students as a whole have a roughly even divide in their political beliefs, with a clear plurality classifying themselves as moderates and smaller groups identifying on both the left and right of center. In the humanities, however, the political left overwhelmingly dominates the student landscape as well as the faculty.
According to a recent survey by College Pulse, 78 percent of philosophy majors, 64 percent of anthropology majors, and 58 percent of English majors state that they hold the economic and political system of socialism in a favorable light. Unfavorable opinions of socialism account for only 21 percent of philosophy, 20 percent of anthropology, and 24 percent of English majors, with the remainder undecided.
When measured as a whole, 51 percent of humanities majors have a positive opinion of socialism while only 27 percent view it critically. On the flip side, 54 percent of students in the same humanities majors have a negative view of capitalism compared to only 32 percent in support.
The leftward skew of students in the humanities stands in sharp contrast with other academic disciplines, and particularly those with actual competency in economic matters. Only 26 percent of economics majors view socialism favorably, while 61 percent have a negative outlook. The further one strays from actually studying and specializing in the analysis of economic behavior, the more positive their outlook on centrally planned economic systems becomes.
Perhaps not surprising, socialist sympathizers among the student body also appear to have an extremely superficial and often muddled understanding of the concept. Although they are remiss to concede the point, such confusion likely extends to socialism’s faculty sympathizers as well. Scholars in these disciplines tend to form their opinions of socialism from an intellectual affinity for its abstract idealization as found in Marxism, critical theory, and other like-minded schools of philosophical thought on the far left. Social scientific analysis of economic behavior, and specifically socialism’s abysmal track record, seldom enters into the equation.
Philosopher Jason Brennan has made this point at length, noting that academic advocates of socialism usually present the system in its abstract ideal. They then deploy that unrealistic standard to critique “failings” of capitalism as it actually exists in the real-world, while neglecting the dismal parallel real-world track record of socialism. When one ideal form is compared the other, or alternatively their non-ideal performances are considered, capitalism consistently outperforms the socialist alternative on both economic and ethical grounds. Standard reference material on socialism from the academic humanities nonetheless remains curiously neglectful of the vast literature on its abysmal performance in practice, and particularly critiques from social scientists who work in this area.
An economist who studies prices, scarcity, and trade-offs has a direct professional awareness of economic policy making, and with it the untenable nature of socialist economic planning. A political scientist who studies comparative government would similarly know the immiserating and often deadly history of socialist economic systems in the countries that have attempted to implement them.
But what training does a literature professor have that permits him or her to competently opine on economic regulation, on tax policy, on public finance and budgeting, or on centrally planned resource allocation by the state? How about the creative-writing professor? Or the fine arts professor? The Spanish or German professor?
Far too often, faculty in these and other humanistic disciplines venture well beyond their own training and expertise to offer highly ideological pronouncements on social scientific matters that they are ill-equipped to even address. As each of these disciplines drifts deeper into a politically homogeneous echo chamber, such opinions are increasingly isolated from both internal and external scrutiny by scholars who do possess the requisite expertise.
While hostility to free markets and capitalism has clearly taken root among both the faculty and students who work in the humanistic sectors of the academy, there is some hope for an eventual course correction that either restores some balance or sees these fields wither and decline. Ideological echo chambers may be comforting to those within them, but they are also a self-defeating strategy for attracting new customers from beyond that echo chamber’s walls.
By only catering to students on the far left of the political spectrum, the humanities have adopted an exclusionary attitude toward other political viewpoints — including those that still comprise a clear majority of the student body. That almost assuredly means an increased concentration of socialist sympathizers among the majors that they do attract, but it also means the much larger and excluded remainder will vote with their feet and head over to the STEM fields, to the business school, and to pre-professional degrees that offer both greater ideological balance and less of an emphasis upon politicizing their course content.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-19/how-leftist-echo-chamber-became-new-norm-campus