Author Topic: Fascism, liberal and tech fascism, progressivism, socialism, crony capitalism  (Read 329572 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
When the govenment directs the economy
« Reply #750 on: November 01, 2021, 12:06:35 AM »

WSJ:

The Spending Bill Is an Attack on Work and Marriage
A single mom could end up paying thousands more for daycare if she marries. Children will suffer.
By Casey B. Mulligan
Oct. 31, 2021 5:45 pm ET


America’s children have suffered from ill-advised public-school closings. Now Democrats want to compound the damage with their welfare spending bill, which would push fathers out of family life and move mothers and fathers alike onto unemployment rolls.

Take Section 23001 of the latest draft of the Build Back Better bill, released on Thursday. It would create a large new federal child-care program. For each year that a couple has children under 5, being unmarried could easily save them over $10,000 annually in child-care costs compared with being married.

That’s because of how the subsidies are structured. A single mother earning 75% of the median household income in her state would pay nothing for child care, regardless of how much the child’s father earned. But the father’s income counts if he is legally part of the family. A husband and wife who each earned about 75% of the median income would have to pay thousands for the same daycare. In 2022-24, the married couple would pay full price, which would likely exceed $15,000 a child a year—$30,000 for two children under 5.

Child care is one of several provisions that would encourage even middle-income people to think seriously about single parenthood. Several Republican senators wrote to Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to object to the new marriage penalties built into Democrats’ proposed reforms to the Earned Income Tax Credit. There inevitably will be marriage penalties baked into the $150 billion the bill would spend on “affordable housing,” details to come.


Democrats will claim that their new bill at least encourages work by making child care free, but that refers only to a narrow slice of the population. Most families, especially those that don’t qualify for a full subsidy or that have older children, will pay more for child care. One reason: Under the heading of “quality regulation,” the bill requires that child-care workers be paid a “living wage” and that their earnings be “equivalent to wages for elementary educators with similar credentials and experience.”


The precise meaning of that would be left to regulators, but according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, elementary-school teachers earned an average of $63,930 annually in 2019, compared with $25,510 for child-care workers. By that benchmark, child-care facilities would need to pay workers 151% more. Perhaps child-care workers would be required to hold master’s degrees, or be represented by unions that could otherwise limit supply as they do with kindergarten teachers.

The new child-care program and various additions to major safety-net programs such as Medicaid and “affordable housing” also discourage work. As one’s income from working increases, the amount offered by these benefit programs decreases. The marginal tax rate on working an extra hour, day or week, or improving your skills, can be extremely high.

The revised bill also allows even America’s highest-income households to receive subsidized ObamaCare insurance as long as they can’t get coverage at work. Some Americans will retire earlier or spend more time between jobs. Much of the lost wages will be replaced by more-generous ObamaCare subsidies at taxpayer expense.

I estimate that the several implicit employment and income taxes in the revised bill would increase marginal tax rates on work by about five percentage points. I expect that such a change, over five years, would reduce full-time equivalent employment by about 4%, or about five million jobs.

Meanwhile, more kids will come home from a regulated child-care facility to an unmarried parent who is out of work. More families will be willing to tolerate this kind of care, regardless of the quality of cognitive or social development, since the price is “free.”

Quebec imposed “quality” regulation on its child-care market, which, a landmark study found, led to “increases in early childhood anxiety and aggression” with “little measured impact on cognitive skills.” Kids exposed to the program suffered “worse health, lower life satisfaction, and higher crime rates later in life.”

The Affordable Care Act taught us the hard way that nice-sounding bill titles don’t necessarily translate to sound public policy. Anyone looking inside Build Back Better will see incentives that work against Americans who want to build stable families.

Mr. Mulligan, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago and senior fellow with the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, served as chief economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers, 2018-19





ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile
Why the heck is this Klaus Schwab World Economic Forum
« Reply #755 on: July 23, 2022, 07:42:05 AM »

so influential?

Why do read about him and they so much

no one ever elected them

https://neonnettle.com/news/19677-world-economic-forum-calls-to-end-wasteful-private-car-ownership

he is just another academic with ties to , of course, Harvard:

https://www.weforum.org/about/klaus-schwab
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Schwab

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
Definition of Fascism
« Reply #756 on: September 05, 2022, 10:58:43 AM »
Henry Olsen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center notes that fascists "believed that multiparty democracy weakened the nation, and that competitive capitalism was wasteful and exploitative. Their alternative was a one-party state that guided the economy through regulation and sector-based accords between labor and business."

=============

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/09/who-are-you-calling-fascist-mr-president-david-harsanyi/?fbclid=IwAR0yV3AkhErkXvLH574hzWxlQKfIw2PZnwUDdHPAR-aSkfhel9IxDooUHEM
« Last Edit: September 05, 2022, 11:07:39 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
WT: Fascism for Dummies
« Reply #757 on: September 14, 2022, 03:32:46 AM »
Fascism for dummies

Those using the word should at least know what it means

By Clifford D. May

Fascism seems to be all the rage these days. I’ll give you a few examples.

Ben Rhodes, who was President Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communications (a title suggesting foreign policy with a spin), wrote last year that the presidency of Donald Trump was “an American experiment with fascism.”

Democratic National Committee chairman Jaime Harrison echoed him, declaring that the Republican Party has “become a party of fascism and fear.” Actor/activist Rob Reiner tweeted last week: “This Midterm there is no gray area. You either cast a vote for Democracy or Fascism. That’s it.” And, of course, President Biden recently charged that Republicans — many if not all — embrace “semi-fascism.”

Was he using that modifier to imply that there are a few tenets of fascism not endorsed even by the “MAGA Republicans” he so intensely despises? Since the most lethal variety of fascism is Nazism, he at least might have made clear that he’s not calling his political opponents genocidal.

My guess is that Mr. Biden, like others employing the term, knows little about this revolutionary ideology to which millions of people in Germany, Italy, Japan, and other countries adhered during the first half of the 20th century.

If you were so daring as to pull aside a black-shirted Antifa member during one of the street riots that group has initiated and ask for a definition of the “fa” he thinks he’s combatting, do you think you’d get a coherent answer?

Would he know that members of the paramilitary wing of Benito Mussolini’s National Fascist Party also wore and were called Blackshirts, and that a similarly violent wing of the Nazi Party wore and were called Brownshirts?

Expressions of fascist fashion — or, more properly, of the “Fascist Aesthetic” — were even more elaborately on display when Mr. Biden recently let loose a diatribe in front of Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, its walls bathed in bloodred lights, U.S. Marines menacingly backing him up.

The president directed his fury toward those millions of fellow Americans he regards as enemies of the state and its leader. “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans,” he railed, “represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic!”

Did the White House communications team — whom I presume wrote the speech and designed the “optics” — realize they were drawing on fascist imagery when they cast the president as a strongman, an idolized and militaristic authority figure differentiating between pure and impure, and determined to crush those who, as Mr. Biden put it, “do not recognize the will of the people”?

Perhaps the president’s advisers thought: “Hey, our job is to make the midterm elections a referendum not on Biden and his record, but on Trump and any Republicans who have not publicly rejected him. So, whatever it takes — even if fascist-inspired.”

Consistent with this strategy, Mr. Biden’s supporters have spent more than $40 million to boost the most Trumpian MAGA Republicans in primaries around the country so that Democrats can run against candidates they believe will be easier to defeat in the general elections.

As Nora Ephron used to say: “No matter how cynical I get, I just can’t keep up.”

OK, class, now take your seats because it’s time for Fascism 101. Among the best scholarly books on the subject remains Eugen Weber’s “Varieties of Fascism: Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century,” first published in 1964.

Fascism, Nazism and other “national socialisms,” he writes, “had their roots in the 19th century and even earlier” in ideas promulgated by such philosophers as Rousseau, Hegel, and Nietzsche. The term derives from fascio, Italian for a bundle or sheath, conveying “strength through unity,” the unifying force being the government and its supreme leader. As Mussolini put it: “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” In common with communism, fascism in its diverse forms opposes liberalism, defined as “individualism and the apparently chaotic conclusions of private enterprise.” Also akin to communism, fascism has had a “passion for science” that often turns out to be pseudo-science. The Soviet Communists had Lysenkoism. Nazis believed, as Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg wrote, that “history must be judged from the point of view of race.” The poet Ezra Pound, a well-known American fascist, moved to Italy in 1924 where he wrote for publications owned by the British fascist Oswald Moseley (whose streetfighters also were called Blackshirts). Pound supported Hitler’s rise, including in paid radio broadcasts attacking the U.S., the U.K., Roosevelt, Churchill, and Jews. Among the ideas he championed: “race pride.” As George Mosse notes in “Fascist Aesthetics and Society: Some Considerations,” the “human body indicates the structure of the mind.” Another attribute of fascism is hypernationalism. The Axis powers all invaded neighbors and folded them into their expanding empires. Neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Biden has displayed any interest in foreign conquests, as far as I’m aware. On the contrary, I see too many Republicans and Democrats succumbing to the siren song of isolationism. This is an opinion column and I’ll close with this one: A serious argument can be made that Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Ali Khamenei, and Kim Jong-un exemplify 21st century varieties of fascism. Had Mr. Biden addressed the increasing national security threats they pose, he might have helped unite us against those who hate us — Democrats and Republicans, progressives and conservatives, the woke and the unwoke. He chose not to.

I think that’s because he wants to win in the worst way. And it’s hard to imagine any way worse than this: slandering his political opponents as fascists while posing as a modern Mussolini in the City of Brotherly Love

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile
Re: Fascism, liberal and tech fascism, progressivism, socialism, crony capitalism
« Reply #758 on: September 14, 2022, 03:52:21 AM »
Yes.  Isn't it weird to be called fascists by fascists.

What is fascist about loving liberty, wanting to live free,supporting smaller government and stronger families and individual responsibility.  The accusation is beyond absurd.

I've been saying, all they do is project themselves when they attack us, but this goes way over any line.  What makes it grow worse over time is to notice the lack of outrage or push back at the reckless name calling of this ultra-divisive President and his deep state henchmen.

The only example they cite of conservatives wanting government control is when we try to limit the freedom of liberals to slaughter their young.  Maybe we should back off on that...



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
Mussolini on Corporatism
« Reply #761 on: September 17, 2022, 08:41:15 AM »
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
― Benito Mussolini

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile
Re: Mussolini on Corporatism
« Reply #762 on: September 17, 2022, 04:51:39 PM »
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
― Benito Mussolini

SO much to quibble with there, but the scary thing is, that is what the statists are doing today.

Merging 'corporations' with the state means they aren't corporations.
It is the destruction of free enterprise.

Obvious in hindsight, but that kind of thinking destroys liberties and lives and leads to war.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
Re: Fascism, liberal and tech fascism, progressivism, socialism, crony capitalism
« Reply #763 on: September 17, 2022, 05:55:10 PM »
"(A) merger of state and corporate power" e.g. FB and the CDC.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile
Re: Fascism, liberal and tech fascism, progressivism, socialism, crony capitalism
« Reply #764 on: September 17, 2022, 06:23:12 PM »
that is what is so frustrating

to see young people who are so gullible saying WE ARE the FASCISTS because they read what Dem shysters are saying on line

or hear at the Universities

I am positive they rattle this off and when they have no clue what fascism is .

Trump deregulating industries
 downsizing government and getting them and corporations off our backs
is simply the opposite

impressionable young minds
ignorant enough to fall for the propaganda....

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile
Re: Fascism, liberal and tech fascism, progressivism, socialism, crony capitalism
« Reply #765 on: September 17, 2022, 09:08:30 PM »
"when they have no clue what fascism is "

  - Hard to get their attention, but we need to tell them what is, and that it's bad.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile
Fascism in Housing
« Reply #766 on: November 27, 2022, 10:29:04 AM »
From Housing thread:

https://nypost.com/2022/11/26/nyc-landlords-could-soon-be-denied-criminal-background-checks-for-tenants/
---------
A couple of comments: 1) What happens in NYC (or Calif) does not stay there; it tells you what leftist liberals who govern all our other large cities are thinking and likely to do soon, cf. Minneapolis:
https://reason.com/2019/09/17/minneapolis-doesnt-want-landlords-to-check-tenants-criminal-history-credit-score-past-evictions/

2) Definitions vary but communism is when the government owns the means of production (no private sector) and Fascism is when ownership in name only is private sector but all key decisions are dictated by government, which is what is happening here. Who you rent to is the key decision in housing. Laws protecting race, gender, etc are matters of rights. 

Laws protecting convicted felons and known bad tenants of recent past violent behaviors and other issues make a mockery of tenant screening, the heart of the housing business. 

If the government makes all the decisions, isn't it just government housing?

All that's left is for private owners to get out of ownership but they have laws blocking that as well.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2022, 01:33:17 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18487
    • View Profile




G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Mark Kelly is garbage
« Reply #771 on: March 14, 2023, 07:34:12 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
WSJ: Proposed guidance
« Reply #772 on: December 11, 2023, 06:15:22 AM »
peachment vote. Images: Reuters/AFP/Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly
While the press frets about Donald Trump establishing the Fourth Reich, President Biden is rewriting laws to arrogate sweeping power for himself. On Thursday the Administration threatened to seize patents of drugs and other innovations, which could be its most economically destructive executive act to date.


The Commerce and Health and Human Services Departments are proposing new guidance on “march-in” rights under the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act. The law was meant to encourage cooperation among industry, research institutions and government to bring innovations to market. Mr. Biden’s patent grab will do the opposite.

Bayh-Dole attempted to solve the problem of tens of thousands of government patents that were collecting dust. Government had taken the position that inventions stemming from federally funded research belonged to the government. But why develop a product if you won’t be allowed to profit from it?

Under Bayh-Dole, research institutions receiving federal funds were allowed to patent inventions and license them to companies to commercialize them. It worked. Only in limited circumstances can government “march in” and confiscate a patent—namely, when a company hasn’t made a good-faith effort to commercialize the research.

Progressives for decades have wanted to use march-in rights to seize patents on drugs they claim are too expensive. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra led the charge last decade in Congress. Yet Administrations of both parties have demurred until now because they understood its destructive impact.

Under the proposed Biden guidelines, march-in rights will be used as price controls. Government agencies could seize patents if “the price or other terms at which the product is currently offered to the public are not reasonable” or “unreasonably limit availability of the invention to the public.”

As Biden National Economic Council director Lael Brainard explained, “We’ll make it clear that when drug companies won’t sell taxpayer funded drugs at reasonable prices, we will be prepared to allow other companies to provide those drugs for less.” Translation: That’s a nice medicine you have there . . . shame if something happened to it.

Did the White House consult with the National Institutes of Health or other scientific agencies? The NIH this year rejected a petition by a left-wing group to exercise march-in rights on a prostate cancer drug by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma. NIH knows that seizing patents would dampen cooperation between research institutions and industry, harming innovation and patients.

That’s what happened 30 years ago when NIH briefly required companies exclusively licensing its inventions to pledge to sell the byproducts at a reasonable price. Private industry walked away. In rescinding the NIH policy in 1995, director Harold Varmus said “the pricing clause has driven industry away from potentially beneficial scientific collaborations with PHS (public health service) scientists” without offsetting benefits to the public. He called it “a restraint on the new product development.”

Former Sens. Birch Bayh and Bob Dole in 2002 explained that their law “makes no reference to a reasonable price that should be dictated by the government. This omission was intentional; the primary purpose of the act was to entice the private sector to seek public-private research collaboration rather than focusing on its own proprietary research.” They stressed that “the purpose of our act was to spur the interaction between public and private research so that patients would receive the benefits of innovative science sooner.”

***
Alas, the Biden Administration cares more about expanding government control over the private economy than accelerating life-saving treatments. The President’s cancer moonshot initiative boosts funding for research institutions, but his threat to seize patents will discourage companies from building on future discoveries. Does the Administration’s left hand know what its far left hand is doing? This will compound the damage from the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price controls.

Progressives say government deserves paternity rights to drug patents because it plays an outsize role in funding their development. But of 18 medicines that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration with patents linked to NIH grants in 2000, total private investment exceeded government funding 66-fold. Profits and intellectual-property protections drive American innovation. Mr. Biden’s patent heist undercuts both and will embolden China to seize U.S. patents.

Note, too, that the Administration’s plan would let the government seize patents of other products such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence, nuclear energy and lithium-ion batteries, and any inventions that result from the $200 billion in funding from last year’s chips bill. Stealing IP is now part of Bidenomics.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2218
    • View Profile
The DEI Crowd Loses One
« Reply #774 on: March 18, 2024, 04:34:13 PM »
Novant Health takes a big hit for firing a high performing white guy and replacing him with a new hire black woman:

Employers May Not "Take Adverse Employment Actions … Based on [Employees'] Race or Gender to Implement" "Diversity and Inclusion" Programs

The Volokh Conspiracy / by Eugene Volokh / Mar 18, 2024 at 9:13 AM

From Tuesday's Fourth Circuit decision in Duvall v. Novant Health, Inc., written by Judge Agee and joined by Judges Quattlebaum and Floyd (upholding a damages award of "about $4 million"):

After a week-long trial, a North Carolina jury found that Novant Health, Inc. terminated David Duvall because of his race, sex, or both, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition to the finding of liability, the jury awarded Duvall $10 million in punitive damages [reduced to the statutory maximum of $300,000].

The court summarized the facts, as usual in this situation, in light most favorable to the verdict:

Duvall, a white man, began working for Novant Health in 2013, when Executive Vice President and Chief Consumer Officer Jesse Cureton, a black man, hired him as Senior Vice President of Marketing and Communications. Based in North Carolina, Duvall reported directly to Cureton and held the same position throughout his employment with Novant Health. Evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Duvall performed exceptionally in his role, receiving strong performance reviews and gaining national recognition for himself and the marketing program he developed for Novant Health.

Despite all that, Cureton fired Duvall in July 2018, a decision that came as a shock to both Duvall and his colleagues. Moreover, Novant Health—a multibillion-dollar company with tens of thousands of employees and an extensive human resources department—had no record of any documented criticism of Duvall's performance or reasons for his termination.

Immediately after firing Duvall, Novant Health elevated two of Duvall's deputies, a white woman and a black woman, to take over his duties. It then later hired another black woman to permanently replace Duvall.

Believing Novant Health fired him merely to achieve racial and gender diversity—or more specifically, to hit certain diversity "targets"—within its leadership, Duvall sued his former employer under Title VII and North Carolina state law in federal district court….

The court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict:

To begin, Duvall presented evidence about the context surrounding his termination. The jury heard that Duvall was fired in the middle of a widescale D&I initiative at Novant Health, which sought to "embed diversity and inclusion throughout" the company, and to ensure that its overall workforce, including its leadership, "reflect[ed] the communities [it] serve[d]." There was evidence presented that Novant Health endeavored to accomplish this goal by, among other things, benchmarking its then-current D&I levels and developing and employing D&I metrics; committing to "adding additional dimensions of diversity to the executive and senior leadership teams" and incorporating "a system wide decision making process that includes a diversity and inclusion lens"; and evaluating the success of its efforts and identifying and closing any remaining diversity gaps.

The jury also heard about the demographic data from 2015 and 2017 that Novant Health collected. From a factual standpoint, the data revealed a decline in female leaders and an overrepresentation of male and white leadership in comparison to the total workforce. It also showed an increase in white male representation "with each level of management," compared to a decrease in "African-American representation … at each level [of management] with the exception of the executive team." By 2019, however, Novant Health saw a dramatic increase in female leaders just from the year prior (the period in which Duvall was fired). It also reflected a decrease of white workers and leaders and an increase in black workers and leaders over the life of the D&I Plan. Additionally, after remaining gaps in the Hispanic and Asian workforce were identified, Novant Health adopted a long-term financial incentive plan that tied executive bonuses to closing those gaps by achieving a specific percentage of each group.

Against that backdrop, we consider the evidence specific to Duvall and his termination.

As noted above, there was substantial evidence at trial that Duvall performed superbly in his role at Novant Health…. But despite this evidence of his exceptional performance, the jury heard that Duvall was abruptly fired, having been told only that Novant Health was "going in a different direction." … Finally, the jury heard Cureton offer shifting, conflicting, and unsubstantiated explanations for Duvall's termination. [Details omitted, but can be seen in the full opinion. -EV] …

{To be clear, employers may, if they so choose, utilize D&I-type programs. What they cannot do is take adverse employment actions against employees based on their race or gender to implement such a program. And as recounted above, the evidence presented at trial in this case was more than sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that is precisely what Novant Health did to Duvall.}

But the court set aside the award of punitive damages, because such damages were available "only in limited circumstances:"

Title VII authorizes punitive damages only when a plaintiff makes two showings. First, the plaintiff must show that the employer engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination (not an employment practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact). Second, the plaintiff must show that the employer engaged in the discriminatory practice with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual. That is, an employer must at least discriminate in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law.

And, the court held, plaintiff introduced no "affirmative evidence" that the employer actually "perceived [the] risk" that its actions were illegal: Duvall "offered no evidence as to the training or qualification that Novant Health offered to or required of Cureton, or a comparable executive, to establish the requisite knowledge of federal anti-discrimination law. Duvall even cross-examined Cureton yet never elicited from him testimony establishing his personal knowledge of federal anti-discrimination law, let alone that he perceived a risk that his decision to fire Duvall would violate it." And the "inference that Cureton had the requisite knowledge given his career as a corporate executive" was insufficient.

The post Employers May Not "Take Adverse Employment Actions … Based on [Employees'] Race or Gender to Implement" "Diversity and Inclusion" Programs appeared first on Reason.com.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/18/employers-may-not-take-adverse-employment-actions-based-on-employees-race-or-gender-to-implement-diversity-and-inclusion-programs/


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile
GOOD!!!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69979
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile
I would have liked to see the guy asking the question response to Larry Elders response.

He probably changed the subject to sports........ :wink:

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2218
    • View Profile
Oft Cited DEI Study Proves Irreproducible
« Reply #779 on: April 06, 2024, 04:09:38 PM »
Study claims diversity in and of itself leads to greater corporate earning. The US military in particular has embraced these findings … and is paying the price in terms of recruitment of whites.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/03/new-study-shows-mckinseys-studies-promoting-dei-profitability-were-garbage/?fbclid=IwAR1f1lh9EHly59e8O9-QFXuy7Lpz2XoPre6QVqJEoSFvXH1ie10JvqD_o6w
« Last Edit: May 21, 2024, 06:06:07 AM by Body-by-Guinness »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile
remembering Yeomni Park relating her College experience at Columbia
« Reply #780 on: April 22, 2024, 09:58:59 AM »
https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2024/2/8/24063748/human-rights-activist-yeonmi-park-freedom-god-socialism/

"Park warns against socialism
The UVU event was sponsored by the Young America’s Foundation, and Park compared the ideology she observed as a student at Columbia with the ideology she learned in North Korea. Park told the UVU audience, “The professors were telling us the only solution was us destroying America and the American Constitution and then rebuilding this country in the name of equity, which meant socialism.”

“These professors learned about socialism in their textbooks, in their comfortable rooms with their air conditioning, on their nice computers with internet,” she said

“They were saying amazing things about socialism and how it would save all of us and take us to a paradise,” she continued. “Instead of a theory, I lived it because I was born in North Korea, a so-called socialist paradise.”

Socialism “promises equality of outcomes,” Park said, comparing it with North Korea’s 51 different social classes. Park explained how the North Korean government divided up social classes after the Korean War, saying landowners and individuals who were anti-communism were put at the bottom. Anyone related to people at the bottom were also placed there.

Living in New York City, Park described conversations she’s had with her friends who “want socialism so bad.” They told her, “Look outside, there are billionaires, and there are homeless people. Capitalism creates inequality, therefore it’s evil.”

“What do you mean that you can be a billionaire?” Park asked. “If you work hard like Steve Jobs, create an iPhone, like Elon Musk creating rockets, you mean that I can be a billionaire? What a concept,” she said.

She continued, “What a thing to celebrate, that you can rise up, that you don’t all need to be equally poor and starving together. Inequality is not a sign of oppression, it’s a sign of progress.”



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18725
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: May 24, 2024, 08:15:39 PM by Crafty_Dog »