There’s a new U.C. in town
Bookworm on Apr 16 2011 at 12:24 pm | Filed under: Education, Jihad
There are a lot of University of California campuses: UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC San Francisco (medical school only), UCLA, UC Santa Cruz, UC Santa Barbara, UC Riverside, UC Irvine, etc.
Oh, about those last two: UC Irvine and UC Riverside have become the hotbeds of pro-Palestinian, anti-Jewish activism. The campuses are in the news right now because some Palestinian students are being prosecuted for intentionally disrupting a speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, depriving him of his free speech rights. The verbal attack against Ambassador Oren is just a teeny example of what gets dished out regularly on those campuses (especially UC Irvine), but with Oren they picked such a high profile target that there was finally some push-back.
The AP has an incredibly brief report on the story. What fascinated me was the headline, which I first spotted on the SF Chronicle’s home page:
I know that, when writing headlines, space is at a premium, but doesn’t that phrasing make it look as if there’s a new campus to add to the UC roster? You know: UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UCLA, UC Muslim….
The Bookworm Turns : A Secret Conservative in Liberal Land,
available in e-format for $4.99 at Amazon or Smashwords.
Email This Post To A Friend
53 Responses to “There’s a new U.C. in town”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
UC- Unadulterated Collusion
Unventilated Chaos
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/16/BAJT1J251C.DTL
It’s likely Californian residents see this all the time.
What they aren’t allowed to see is population centers with much higher firearms concentration per population that don’t have Oakland’s problems.
It becomes easy for the media to mislead those who are fed only an incomplete figure of things.
more on UC’s
Obamanomics Applied to Grades
Many students agree with Comrade Obama that “the rich” (a.k.a. employers) should be looted even more mercilessly to finance his obscenely wasteful, never-ending spending spree. Let’s see whether they would like the same principle to be applied to their grade point averages:
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/04/obamanomics-app.html
Btw, such shootings appear to be gang world initiations. They find somebody that is obviously out of town, say driving a mercedes benz, and then shoots into the car and that is proof of loyalty to the gang.
When driving in places that boast criminal enterprises and a low level of order, such as Oakland, it is much better to blend in by driving junk cars. There’s plenty of bad ones at the rental place you can specifically ask for.
Remember, deception begins 3 days before you get within range of the enemy.
SADIE: Many students agree with Comrade Obama that “the rich” (a.k.a. employers) should be looted even more mercilessly to finance his obscenely wasteful, never-ending spending spree.
The primary cause of the deficit are the tax cuts and the recession, both of which are legacies of the Bush Adminsitration. Returning tax levels to the Clinton-era rates, which were lower than during the Reagan Administration, and much lower than during the American Age of Affluence, would solve much of the problem. The vision of America where they can’t afford to repair their roads, build a modern infrastructure, while caring for their elderly is pretty dire, — and completely unnecessary.
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-16-09bud-rev6-28-10-f1.jpg
Unremarkable Corruption
I’m finding the “Joseph Naso” headline much more interesting just because I’ve never heard of him before. It will be interesting to hear how the thugs v Oren case works out.
Z’s trying to hand wave corruption away, Sadie.
Bu-u-u-u-u-sh! Ba-a-a-a-a-d!
I recall the Clinton era well. The lower Clinton-era tax rates only happened when the Republicans took over Congress.
As far blaming Bush era budgets for where we are now…ridiculous!
We’ve been over and over this before, but (sigh)….one more time:
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/obama-deficit-2011.jpg
Danny, it just keeps getting more pathetic, doesn’t it? Zack is truly a Bourbon.
Zacky, I have a new “let-me-run-to-Wiki-and-pretend-I-did-some-research” question for you:
How much would we have to tax the rich to pay off the $14 trillion federal debt over how many years? This assumes that NBOTUS won’t keep blithely piling on the deficit spending.
Now scoot, kid! I’m expecting your boilerplate response by 3 p.m. PDT. (Also, please try to cite a leftwing think tank source that doesn’t have the likes of the execrable pro-abortionist Marian Wright Edelman on its board.)
Z thinks personally attacking Bush and doing hand waves over Bush taxes is going to make people forget the quagmire Obama has put us in economically and militarily. Z thinks personally attacking Bush and doing hand waves over Goody Clinton taxes is going to erase Obama’s deficit spending for the US, which he tried his utmost to spend into his own bank account.
Zachriel
Returning tax levels to the Clinton-era rates, which were lower than during the Reagan Administration, and much lower than during the American Age of Affluence, would solve much of the [deficit] problem.
Only someone who has not seen figures for Federal receipts and outlays as a % of GDP would make such a claim. Or for someone has actually seen those figures, such a claim is evidence of lying through their teeth.
Receipts averaged 19.0 % of GDP during the Clinton Administration (1993-2000). During the Bush Administration (2001-2008), they averaged 17.6% of GDP.
Outlays for the Bush Administration averaged 19.6% of GDP, and for the Clinton Administration, 19.8% of GDP.
For 2009-2011, outlays/expenditures averaged 24.7% of GDP. For 2009-2011, the deficit averaged 9.9% of GDP. Take away the 1.4% difference in receipts between Bush and Clinton Administrations, and you are left with a deficit of 8.5% of GDP.
Do the math, Zero-Team. IF. YOU. CAN.
1.4/9.9 = MUCH according to Zero-Team math.
Brilliant.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
Table 1.3—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) in Current Dollars, Constant (FY 2005) Dollars, and as Percentages of GDP: 1940–2016
Zachriel:
The vision of America where they can’t afford to repair their roads, build a modern infrastructure..is pretty dire, — and completely unnecessary.
I am reminded of the STIMULUS funds. Infrastructure funds were reduced because that would favor male construction workers over female government workers.
Recall the admission of Obama that there weren’t shovel-ready projeccts – contrary to what he claimed in 2009.
Z pretends to care about WMDs in Iraq. Now there’s no WMDs in Libya. But Z still complains about the expense of Iraq. But all the bombs dropped in Libya. Does Z not understand that bombs cost money?
I have heard not one peep out of Z over the bombs dropped in Libya. You’d think with all the complainig and hand waving Z does, there’d at least be one. But there’s zero.
Get it, Zero.
Danny Lemieux: The lower Clinton-era tax rates only happened when the Republicans took over Congress.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which the Clinton Administration claimed would lead to a fiscally sound economy (by reducing pressure on borrowing), and which many Republicans said would lead to a financial disaster, was passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress.
Danny Lemieux: We’ve been over and over this before, but (sigh)….one more time:
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/obama-deficit-2011.jpg
Z: Budget deficits are too high. Here’s why.
D: You’re wrong. Budget deficits are too high.
By the way, the 2009 budget was Bush’s last budget. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/browse.html
The bailouts and the stimulus were one-time expenses.
Charles Martel: How much would we have to tax the rich to pay off the $14 trillion federal debt over how many years?
You can’t. Clinton-era tax rates affected every bracket.
Gringo: For 2009-2011, outlays/expenditures averaged 24.7% of GDP.
Yes, the U.S. is the epicenter of the global financial crisis, and much of the increased outlay is due to the stimulus and other costs associated with propping up the economy. Short term, the U.S. should avoid tax increases. Long term, there is plenty of wealth to address the debt problem without sacrificing important social programs. Sky-is-falling hysteria leads to advocating misplaced policies.
Zacky, I knew you couldn’t do it! Nothing on Wiki you could plagiarize?
Z huffs and puffs: “By the way, the 2009 budget was Bush’s last budget..the bailouts and the stimulus were one-time expenses.”
The last Bush budget included a TARP bailout that was a one-time infusion of liquidity into a tottering banking system. It was developed and approved with a Democrat Congress. Most of the money has been repaid by the banks. I know enough about the details of what happened to have agreed with that TARP bailout.
As far as the Obama administration’s bailouts and stimuli being one-time expenses, you’re kidding right? The “stimuli” were a combination of slush fund infusions, corporate bailouts (GM and Chrysler) and pay-offs to non-productive favored groups that will never be repaid and stimulated zero economic growth. These and all the other social-program obligations will continue, as the Obama regime and CBO projections confirm.
Martel, I don’t think you should assume he understands what the word plagiarism means.
I have yet to hear one peep from Z on how the bombs dropped in Libya were good/waste of money.
Z expostulates: “Yes, the U.S. is the epicenter of the global financial crisis”.
Uh, no, actually. The U.S. was part of the problem (thanks to the U.S.’s facilitation of the mortgage bundling and real estate bust crises) but the EUropean sovereign debt issues are separate issues entirely and far more serious.
But, then, we’ve been over all this ground before.
Ymar, you won’t hear a peep from Z about Libya until he figures out what line he should take. With the left in disarray over the issue, he has to wait to see which way the wind is finally blowing before he can commit to/plagiarize a point of view.
Z’s shaking in his sandals contemplating going up against his guy Obama in the White House.
Martel, during 2003, Z was a vegetable. During 2004, he was stunned. During 2005, he finally became self-aware enough to be ignorant. And in 2006, he understood what quagmire was, just as Petraeus kicked him in the ribs like a rock. Finally Z figured out that there were no WMDs, because he first had to figure out that there was supposed to be WMDs. He was out of the loop for a long time.
Danny Lemieux: The “stimuli” were a combination of slush fund infusions, corporate bailouts (GM and Chrysler) and pay-offs to non-productive favored groups that will never be repaid and stimulated zero economic growth.
The CBO says the stimulus contributed significantly to the economic recovery (between 1.1% and 3.5% in 2010). Regardless, it is not an ongoing expense, or sufficient to explain the size of ongoing deficits.
What economic recovery? How come Zack sees the emperor’s new clothes and we don’t?
More on those rosy Obama projections:
And, from the “If the CBO says it’s true, then it’s infallible file”, we get this January, 2009 report and projection:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-Outlook_Testimony.pdf
The money paragraph, on page 2 states as follows….
The Economic Outlook
CBO anticipates that the current recession, which started
in December 2007, will last until the second half of
2009, making it the longest recession since World War II.
(The longest such recessions otherwise, the 1973–1974
and 1981–1982 recessions, both lasted 16 months. If the
current recession were to continue beyond midyear, it
would last at least 19 months.) It could also be the
deepest recession during the postwar period: By CBO’s
estimates, economic output over the next two years will
average 6.8 percent below its potential—that is, the level
of output that would be produced if the economy’s
resources were fully employed (see Figure 1). This recession, however, may not result in the highest unemployment
rate. That rate, in CBO’s forecast, rises to 9.2 percent by early 2010 (up from a low of 4.4 percent at the
end of 2006) but is still below the 10.8 percent rate seen
near the end of the 1981–1982 recession.
Of course, this was all projected before Obama and his Democrat Congress passed the wildly successful “Stimulus” plan that led to even greater growth, markedly lower unemployment full restoration of property values. Hope and Change!
Whoops…apparently my one link to the CBO’s long economic projections on Obama’s policies did not take. Here it is again:
http://www.qando.net/wp-content/uploads/original-deficit2.jpg
Oh, yeah…Bu-u-u-u-u-u-ush! Ba-a-a-a-a-ad!
Z-Team:
The CBO says the stimulus contributed significantly to the economic recovery (between 1.1% and 3.5% in 2010).
My judgment on the effectiveness of the Stimulus comes from the graph the Obama Administration distributed predicting how unemployment would go if the Stimulus were passed, compared to how unemployment would go if the Stimulus were not passed.
Here is the reality of the unemployment situation:
Unemployment after passage of the Stimulus was GREATER than the Obama Admininstration predicted it would be if the Stimulus had not been passed.
That is what happened, and any mumbo-jumbo from the Obama Administration or the Zero-Team cannot contradict that. Judging by what the Obama Administration predicted for the Stimulus, the Stimulus was an utter failure.
By their fruits ye shall know them.
That graph also puts paid to any claim of “recovery.” Nine percent unemployment is recovery. Yeah, right. In the words of the POTUS: “Do you think we’re stupid?”
http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/the-census-shores-up-the-employment-rate/
Finally, a shovel ready project – digging a hole with facts for the Z-team to fall in to. Thanks fellas
Baba-bamboozled Danny. Maybe that’s what Z is trying to interrogate. Bush bamboozled Obama.
Sadie, Z’s the Living Dead. You know how those end up.
Danny Lemieux: And, from the “If the CBO says it’s true, then it’s infallible file”, we get this January, 2009 report and projection:
Cherry-picking.
CBO: “A major source of uncertainty in the outlook is the degree and persistence of turmoil in financial markets and the resulting impact on the future course of the economy. Many financial instruments and practices that contributed to the financial crisis came into widespread use only in the past decade, and the scale of the problems and the worldwide linkages of financial markets are significantly different from what they were in previous episodes of financial stress in the United States. Furthermore, the scale and novelty of federal intervention, particularly by the Federal Reserve, and uncertainty about the degree to which those interventions will affect the economic outlook, make it particularly difficult for analysts to use historical patterns to forecast the near future.”
Diversion:
Z: The stimulus, a one-time expense, does not explain the size of on-going deficits.
D: Economic projections are uncertain.
Charles Martel: What economic recovery? How come {Zachriel} sees the emperor’s new clothes and we don’t?
The U.S. economy is still weak, but the economy grew at an annualized rate of 3.1% in the fourth quarter last, and 2.6% in the previous quarter.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
Meanwhile, the job market is improving.
http://chattahbox.com/images/2011/01/job-growth_chart_labor_bureau-1024×711.jpg
Note the trendline since 2009.
The size of the economic calamity severely damaged the U.S. economy. It will take time for the injuries to heal.
Gringo: Unemployment after passage of the Stimulus was GREATER than the Obama Admininstration predicted it would be if the Stimulus had not been passed.
As mentioned above, the severity of the economic debacle and the lack of historical precedents meant that predictions were very uncertain. The effects of the financial meltdown were much worse than originally thought. Another factor is that “passage of the Stimulus” is not the stimulus. The stimulus took months to enter the economy. In any case, you can look at job creation for the correlation.
http://chattahbox.com/images/2011/01/job-growth_chart_labor_bureau-1024×711.jpg
If you look at the unemployment rate, it shoots up rapidly in 2009, levels off, and is now edging down. Nevertheless, the U.S. economy is still fragile, and many people are still having troubles finding work.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate
Following the crash of ’29 and the Great Depression (no, not the Obama Depression…the current one!), there were many partial recoveries. The problem is that the systemic damage to the economy was so great that the “recoveries” were short-lived.
Aw heck, I could go into detailed rebuttals of Z’s hope-springs-eternal commentary, but Kevin Williamson at NRO does such a good job, I’ll just turn it over to him:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264917/not-tax-cuts-not-wars-and-not-bailouts-kevin-d-williamson
Danny Lemieux: Following the crash of ’29 and the Great Depression (no, not the Obama Depression…the current one!), there were many partial recoveries. The problem is that the systemic damage to the economy was so great that the “recoveries” were short-lived.
Um, no. GDP grew from the time of the New Deal, exceeding it’s previous size by 1936. There was a temporary recession in 1937 when deficit hawks convinced Roosevelt to slash spending, a course he then reversed. Growth resumed well before WWII.
http://norcalcyclingnews.com/words/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/depression-gdp-output-1.gif
The recession of 1937 gives a clear test of the effect of stimulus spending (when there is a sufficient supply of capital and excess capacity).
Danny Lemieux: Aw heck, I could go into detailed rebuttals of Z’s hope-springs-eternal commentary, but Kevin Williamson at NRO does such a good job, I’ll just turn it over to him:
Um, no. The article conflates the short-term deficits with long-term structural problems. The current deficits are a reflection of the recession, including reduced receipts and increased spending. Once the economy recovers, then deficits are more on the order of $700 billion per year for the medium-term. This is representative of the conflation.
Williamson: But even that $2.2 trillion over ten years would not make much of a dent in our $1.6 trillion annual deficit.
The projected deficits are approximately $700 billion per year over the next decade. (They will start to rise to very significant levels over the long-term due to entitlements, but that is not what Williamson is stating.) The tax cuts of $300 billion per year would make a sizable difference to that deficit. The wars at $170 billion would also make a sizeable difference.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12039
Addressing the expected deficits projected for the next several years is an important matter. If investors believe the U.S. doesn’t take the debt seriously, interest rates could increase, and that would increase the carrying cost of the debt, and therefore increase the deficit. Once the economy is on sound footing, the U.S. should address this through a combination of taxes and cuts to bring the deficits into line. This will ensure continued confidence among investors.
There is also a long-term problem with entitlements, and the sooner the U.S. comes up with a plan to address the problem, the better it will be. But it’s not a threat to the economy at this point.
Who are you going to believe, FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, or Z’s own cryin’ eyes?
“We’re Spending More Than Ever and It Doesn’t Work” – Henry Morgenthau, 1939.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/14/were-spending-more-than-ever-and-it-doesnt-work/
Z just made the claim that spending can create economic money growth. Can you believe it? And Z thinks the trickle down economy wasn’t going to work but his corrupt cronyism will?
Danny Lemieux: Who are you going to believe, FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, or Z’s own cryin’ eyes?
That’s funny. You provide a chart that shows unemployment peaking when FDR become president, then dropping continuously until he reigned back the New Deal in 1937, then resuming its decline when FDR returns to stimulus spending.
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/ndchart.JPG
Obviously people are getting government jobs when the Democrats destroyed the private sector. Wasn’t that the entire point of Democrat politics.
Government jobs aren’t economic growth or even sustainability.
But Z is still handwaving Libya away while he’s trying to figure out where his sandals are. Which is why, if you have all noticed, Z cannot even contest a single point I have made.
Wow! You’re right, Z. I guess the lesson to be learned is that we need unemployment to go up to 25-37% and we can then expect it to decline, especially when we throw in a world war. That’s a plan. Bravo!
Danny, we all know that when the men went to war, the women took up the manufacturing jobs left over. This meant that 50% of America’s population, working population, were women and they were now working instead of being at home. Well, many of them, not all. That plus the 100% deployment of manpower, meant unemployment would go up? No, it would go down, definitely. Even if a minority of the 50% of women started working, it would go down.
That had nothing to do with government spending, however, and everything to do with political, social, and military upheaval. Which, you could say, the Left specializes in. Chaos unburdened, death unquantified, and misery untold. That is the Leftist platform.
Creating a huge army may be a short term fix to unemployment, but eventually the army is demobilized and then what.
Sorry, Z. Didn’t mean to make light of the unemployed. You are unemployed, aren’t you?
True social compassion means keeping unemployment very, very low. This requires creating jobs …not government jobs (which take from the economy) but private sector jobs that create new wealth.
Ymarsakar: Z just made the claim that spending can create economic money growth.
“Economic money growth”? If you mean the money supply, then because modern currency by fiat, the government can certainly increase the money supply.
If you mean economic growth, a stimulus works by borrowing (or spending of savings). This will stimulate economic activity as long as there is sufficient capital to borrow and there is excess capacity. If not, then it will lead either to higher interest rates (in the former case), or inflation (the latter case). The expenditure makes most sense when the money is used to build infrastructure that will help fuel long-term growth, and repayment of the principal. It will stimulate the economy even if the money is spent on building machines that have no intrinsic economic value (e.g. tanks for WWII), and employing people in jobs that have no intrinsic value (soldiers for WWII).
Danny Lemieux citing Beach quoting Folsom about Morgenthau: Indeed average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931, the year before Roosevelt captured the presidency from Herbert Hoover.
Talk about cherry-picking. 1931 may be the year *before* Roosevelt won the Presidency, but he didn’t become President until 1933. Meanwhile, unemployment was skyrocketing during the interim period. The 1939 rate was significantly lower than the rate of 1933, when Roosevelt actually took office. In addition, there were a number of important relief programs that gave people sustenance during the crisis. The U.S. is still benefiting from many of the works projects completed during that period.
“As the economy began to improve in the late 1930s, young men found higher-paying jobs at home, and the number of CCC camps across the country dwindled.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/introduction/ccc-introduction/
Danny Lemieux: I guess the lesson to be learned is that we need unemployment to go up to 25-37% and we can then expect it to decline, especially when we throw in a world war.
Not sure if you are ignoring the point, or simply missing it. It’s clear that Roosevelt inherited an economic crisis, and that unemployment dropped during the New Deal, and only rose when the New Deal was cut back, then resumed it’s decline again, finally ending during the Great Stimulus of WWII when all the unemployed found jobs with the government.
Ymarsakar: Creating a huge army may be a short term fix to unemployment, but eventually the army is demobilized and then what.
There was a recession. However, the GI Bill provided extended unemployment benefits, as well as education and housing benefits. This led to the Affluent Society and a large expansion of the middle class.
Danny Lemieux: This requires creating jobs …not government jobs (which take from the economy) but private sector jobs that create new wealth.
It’s important to understand that basic Keynesian economics does not advocate wealth through government jobs, but stimulus to replace demand during recessions, and negative stimulus to regulate demand (and pay down debt) during expansions.
If Zack had covered the JFK assassination, he would have reported it like this:
Danny: It’s incontrovertible that JFK was dead by the time his motorcade reached Parkland Hospital.
Zacky: Actually, there is some evidence that he was alive and even dictating final notes to his wife on the ride over (http://www.mylittlesecretary.com). In many cases higher brain functions can be taken over temporarily by the shoulders and even the navel (http://www.whereisbidensbrain?.com). You are correct, though, that being shot in the head is a terrible thing and we are right to lament that it happened to him.
I suppose that Z’s endorsement of Keynesian economics reveals an evolutionary progress in economic understanding away from Marx and Engles. That alone puts them ahead of the Obama School of Economics.
Given enough time, the Z clan may even progress further to an understanding of the Austrian School, followed by the Chicago School.
That’s me, a silver lining kinda guy!
Danny Lemieux: I suppose that Z’s endorsement of Keynesian economics reveals an evolutionary progress in economic understanding away from Marx and Engles.
Keysianism is a modern economic theory based on economic principles. It’s changed quite a bit since Keynes, but the basic tenets still have important explanatory power.
Danny Lemieux: Austrian School … Chicago School …
The Austrian School has little currency in economics. The Chicago School and rational agency!?
“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief.” — Alan Greenspan
Correction, the Austrian School, forged in the crucibles of experience, have little currency in Z’s economics.
Frankly, I rather doubt that the Z gang is at all familiar with the Austrian school. They’ll be exposed to that in Economics 102.
Kenynesian is a regressive fossil just like Z’s outdated methods of aristocratic decree.
Danny Lemieux: Correction, the Austrian School, forged in the crucibles of experience, have little currency in Z’s economics.
The Austrian School rejects the use of empirical data, falsification, and the scientific method, so it has nothing to offer in terms of a positive theory of economics. The reliance on laissez faire has little currency in economics, though it does have some political influence. Within economics, the Austrian School has little influence outside their own clique. It’s primarily a scholastic veneeer for a philosophical position.
The financial meltdown has seen a resurgence in Keynesianism. An unregulated shadow market. An overstimulated economy. A reliance on rational agency. All the classic factors that lead to a bubble and collapse. Keep in mind that the most advanced and successful economies in the world are highly integrated and mixed.
Z now thinks he knows what empirical data and the scientific method are? How more ridiculous can he get. Stop beclowning yourself, Z, for once.
The financial metldown has been caused by a resurgence of Keynesianism. The only factor we need to see a bubble collapse is you and your ideological pals, Z. When we see those, we know one is coming.