ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Niko ne može da negira klimatske promjene. Više je pitanje da li te promjene dovode u pitanje bezbjednost država i ljudi.

Čomski prije neki dan reko da će "u narednim godinama" biti potopljena obala Bangladeša ili tako neke zemlje. A šta ako ne bude? Šta će Čomski da kaže onda?

I šta uopšte znači to "u narednim godinama"? 22. vijeka možda?

Sve u svemu, nije neka tajna da su Markuze i još neki napisali da će kapitalizam propasti onda kada prestane da se razvija. To jest, ako "priroda" natjera kapitalizam da ne širi dalje proizvodnju, počeće stagnacija i konačno propast.

Dakle, konzervativci posmatraju to kao komunističku zavjeru protiv kapitalističkog ekonomskog rasta.

Komunisti, ali ne ovi hipici poput Markuzea, smatraju da je to zavjera samih kapitalista, samo ne više nego srednje klase. Jer se zaustavljanjem razvoja zamrzavaju postojeće nejednakosti. Kina da ostane na sadašnjem nivou a Amerika 3 puta bogatija. Nijedna zemlja u razvoju neće prihvatiti zamrzavanje ekonomskih aktivnosti.

Zamislite da je Kina prihvatila ekološke teze 1990. godine, danas bi bila 10 a ne 3 puta siromašnija od SAD.

Dakle, za realiste naspram mac ideologa, bitno je šta je starije, kokoška ili jaje, to jest, ideja zaustavljanja razvoja nezapadnih zemalja ili rušenja kapitalizma, ili ideja ekološke katastrofe.

Nisam još čuo da je neko od ekologa pokazao da su prvo pričali o životnoj sredini a potom o markuzeovskom ograničavanju kapitalizma. Naprotiv, nailazio sam samo na scenoslijed prema kojem je starija ideja zaustavljanja razvoja.

Nači bitno je dal je toliko loše, kad je stvarno dan d, jer nije isto jel u narednim godinama ili 23. vijeku, i kako se to odražava na bogatstvo zapada s jedne, i ostalih s druge strane.

Hvala na odgovorima.

Bato, imas te climate change deniers, od politicara do obicnog glasaca, zato kazem "negiraju".

Naravno, u svakodnevnoj politici, ali ozbiljan konzervativac ne može da negira, može samo da razmatra dal ljudski ili prirodni faktor to izaziva, koje su stvarne razmjere i posljedice itd

To je suviše globalna priča. Amerika još nije u tom stadijumu, nego u fazi da zavisi od glasova hrišćana i rudara uglja i od novca naftaša i autoindustrije. Hrišćani se pritom ideološki opiru ideji da se treba boriti protiv otopljavanja. Republikanci trenutno žive od gerimanderinga, što je prilično kratkoročna taktika. Možda postoji neka dugoročna vizija u nekim granama administracije, ali sami političari gledaju samo izbore, glasove, i donacije.

Mogao bi kapitalizam da se razvija i proizvodeći alternativne električne centrale, alternativne vidove transporta. Mogli bismo da imamo fabrike koje prave oblake kao i kolektore ugljen dioksida. Japan planira da zadovolji svoje energetske potrebe flotom satelita sa solarnim ćelijama.

Biodiverzitet je trenutno u većoj opasnosti od kapitalizma. Mada, mogli bismo da imamo i fabrike biodiverziteta, ali valjda je bolje sprečiti nego lečiti.

Quote from: scallop on 22-12-2016, 15:32:08
Otto Muck je računao da je Jukatanski asteroid izazvao 3000 godina mraka u Evropi, pa između ostalog i belu rasu.

Ja znam samo za jedan jukatanski asteroid, a to je Chicxulub asteroid, ali on je pao pre 66 miliona godina, kada ljudi još nisu postojali. Nešto tu ne štima. Postoji li još neki jukatanski asteroid? Šta je polje ekspertize tog Ottoa Mucka? Vidim da je pisao o Atlantidi. Zašto uvodimo "atlantidistu" priču?

Mogao sam da se uhvatim nekog drugog slučaja. Nisam očekivao da će uneti pometnju. Izvinjavam se. Radi se o prirodnim katastrofama i posledicama. Otto Muck je samo jednu prirodnu katastrofu razradio do detalja i još mi je sveža u sećanju. Dakle, prirodne katastrofe imaju daleko opsežnije posledice od ugljendioksidne. Vidljive su posle svake jače erupcije vulkana na Islandu. Onaj ko u St. Andeas raselini ima Napa dolinu, a u Jeloustonu gaji turizam, nema prostora za globalno otopljavanje. Sutra može da im se priča završi.

Quote from: scallop on 22-12-2016, 18:04:27
Mogao sam da se uhvatim nekog drugog slučaja. Nisam očekivao da će uneti pometnju. Izvinjavam se. Radi se o prirodnim katastrofama i posledicama. Otto Muck je samo jednu prirodnu katastrofu razradio do detalja i još mi je sveža u sećanju. Dakle, prirodne katastrofe imaju daleko opsežnije posledice od ugljendioksidne. Vidljive su posle svake jače erupcije vulkana na Islandu. Onaj ko u Kalifornijskoj raselini ima Napa dolinu, a u Jeloustonu gaji turizam, nema prostora za globalno otopljavanje. Sutra može da im se priča završi.

šta to zapravo znači? da ne treba voditi računa o emisiji ugljen-dioksida, jer sutra može da se javi neka prirodna katastrofa koja svo vođenje računa može da učini beznačajnim?

@Bata

ne verujem da ozbiljan konzervativac razmišlja na taj način. kao što scallop reče, konzervativci štite interes krupnog kapitala, i nije ga mnogo briga da li je u pitanju priroda ili ljudski faktor. ako je priroda - divno, oni nemaju ništa sa tim, teraj dalje. ako je čovek - onda će upreti da dokažu da je priroda, jer ih interesuje sada i ovde. ja verujem da su i kinezi 90-tih prihvatali ekološke teze, ali da ih je bilo baš briga, upravo iz razloga koje si pomenuo. hoćemo sada da se razvijamo, a za budućnost ćemo da vidimo.

Quote from: tomat on 22-12-2016, 18:34:51

šta to zapravo znači? da ne treba voditi računa o emisiji ugljen-dioksida, jer sutra može da se javi neka prirodna katastrofa koja svo vođenje računa može da učini beznačajnim?

Otprilike. Ako sa nečim treba da se bavimo, onda je to zloupotreba resursa svetskih razmera. Niko od vas se ne žali na I-fon, I-pod, mobilne telefone i ostala sranja, a mogli biste, bilo bi manje emisije ugljendioksida. Imam kod kuće tri potrošena laptopa. Kao da je to cipela, pa neću da je čistim. Ne žalite se na brzu hranu, a svaki proizvod koji kupite je posledica arčenja energije. Jedete gambore? Oni su treći uzrok generisanja CO₂. Svaka generacija žileta za brijanje prvo postane loša da bi mogli da proizvedu istu, ali novu. Sa novom količinom plastike, koja je u osnovi - nafta. Što kratkotrajnije to se brže vrti. Hajde, inženjeri, ne brukajte mi profesiju.

Tomat, to o konzervativcima možeš da tvrdiš samo ako istom motkom opališ po komijima. To jest, Markuzeovcima.

Mac, Japan možda može i na Mars tako, ali čitava planeta ne može. Nekima, znaš, još treba struja i tako neka čista voda i krov nad glavom. Ja ne bih da Japan mojim ortakom gloginje mlati.

Meni jedan Britanac prije 10 godina pričao da "razvijene" zemlje izbacuju ugalj iz upotrebe. Jes se zajebo.

Trampu rade o glavi!

http://standard.rs/svet/36550-расте-опасност-по-трампов-живот

 No middle class, no republic: GOP plans to destroy America's safety net will also kill democracy


Newt Gingrich openly bragged recently at the Heritage Foundation that the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress were going to "break out of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt model."  That "model," of course, created what we today refer to as "the middle class."
Ever since the election of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have been working overtime to kneecap institutions that support the American middle class. And, as any working-class family can tell you, the GOP has had some substantial successes, particularly in shifting both income and political power away from voters and towards billionaires and transnational corporations.
In July of last year, discussing SCOTUS's 5/4 conservative vote on Citizens United, President Jimmy Carter told me: "It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it's just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery." He added: "[W]e've just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors."
As Princeton researchers Gilens and Page demonstrated in an exhaustive analysis of the difference between what most Americans want their politicians to do legislatively, versus what American politicians actually do, it's pretty clear that President Carter was right.
They found that while the legislative priorities of the top 10 percent of Americans are consistently made into law, things the bottom 90 percent want are ignored. In other words, today in America, democracy only "works" for the top 10 percent of Americans.
For thousands of years, economists and economic observers from Aristotle to Adam Smith to Thomas Picketty have told us that a "middle class" is not a normal by-product of raw, unregulated capitalism — what right-wing ideologues call "the free market."
Instead, unregulated markets — particularly markets not regulated by significant taxation on predatory incomes — invariably lead to the opposite of a healthy middle class: They produce extremes of inequality, which are as dangerous to democracy as cancer is to a living being.
With so-called "unregulated free markets," the rich become super-rich, while grinding poverty spreads among working people like a heroin epidemic. This further polarizes the nation, both economically and politically, which, perversely, further cements the power of the oligarchs.
While there's a clear moral dimension to this — pointed out by Adam Smith in his classic "Theory of Moral Sentiments" — there's also a vital political dimension.
Smith noted, in 1759, that, "All constitutions of government are valued only in proportion as they tend to promote the happiness of those who live under them. This is their sole use and end."
Jefferson was acutely aware of this: The Declaration of Independence was the first founding document of any nation in the history of the world that explicitly declared "happiness" as a "right" that should be protected and promoted by government.
That was not at all, however, a consideration for the architects of supply-side Reaganomics, although they appropriated JFK's "rising tide lifts all boats" metaphor to sell their hustle to (boatless) working people.
Far more troubling (and well-known to both Smith and virtually all of our nation's Founders), however, was Aristotle's observation that when a nation pursues economic or political activities that destroy its middle class, it will inevitably devolve either into mob rule or oligarchy. As he noted in "The Politics":

"Now in all states there are three elements: One class is very rich, another very poor, and a third in a mean. . . . But a

[government] ought to be composed, as far as possible, of equals and similars; and these are generally the middle classes.
"Thus it is manifest that the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those states are likely to be well-administered in which the middle class is large, and stronger if possible than both the other classes, or at any rate than either singly; for the addition of the middle class turns the scale, and prevents either of the extremes from being dominant."
This is how America was for the Boomer generation: A 30-year-old in the 1970s had a 90 percent chance of having or attaining a higher standard of living than his or her parents. But, since the 1980s introduction of Reaganomics, there's been more than a 70-percent drop in "social mobility" — the ability to move from one economic station of life into a better one.
So, if our democratic republic is to return to democracy and what's left of our middle class is to survive (or even grow), how do we do that?
History shows that the two primary regulators within a capitalist system that provide for the emergence of a middle class are progressive taxation and a healthy social safety net.
As Jefferson noted in a 1785 letter to Madison, "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
Similarly, Thomas Paine, proposing in "Agrarian Justice" (1797) what we today call Social Security, said that a democracy can only survive when its people, "See before them the certainty of escaping the miseries that under other governments accompany old age." Such a strong social safety net, Paine argued, "will have an advocate and an ally in the heart of all nations."
Tragically, Republicans are today planning to destroy both our nation's progressive taxation system and our social safety net, in obsequious service to their billionaire paymasters.
Flipping Jefferson and FDR on their heads, Republicans are proposing multi-million-dollar tax breaks for the rich, with a few-hundred-dollars bone tossed in for working people.
Meanwhile, Republicans are already hard at work.
As Ian Milheiser notes, "Republicans in the House hope to cut Social Security benefits by 20 to 50 percent. Speaker Paul Ryan's plan to voucherize Medicare would drive up out-of-pocket costs for seniors by about 40 percent. Then he'd cut Medicaid by between a third and a half."
If Gingrich, Ryan, et al succeed in destroying FDR's legacy programs, not only will the bottom 90 percent of Americans suffer, but what little democracy we have left in this republic will evaporate, and history suggests it will probably be replaced by a violent, kleptocratic oligarchy.
Hang on tight — the ride could get rough.

The biggest fight on trade may be among Trump's own team

Quote
Donald Trump is speaking with two voices on trade, one of the hot-button issues that propelled him to victory on Election Day.
Trump, the incoming president, alarmed free traders with protectionist rhetoric during the campaign, vowing to impose tariffs on Chinese imports and invoke other punitive measures if the nation's trade deficit doesn't improve. He has now backed that rhetoric by naming economist Peter Navarro to a new group called the White House National Trade Council. Navarro, a business professor at the University of California, Irvine, is the author of "Death by China" and many other books and articles claiming that Chinese mercantilism is decimating the US economy. He co-authored candidate Trump's economic plan and fueled many of his protectionist ideas.
Business groups hate Trump's threat to shake up US trading relationships, since that would likely provoke retaliatory measures by China and other trading partners subject to new US restrictions. Most Fortune 1000 companies have some exposure to the Chinese economy. Navarro's ideas, if implemented, could shut down an important source of growth for those businesses and thousands of smaller companies dependent on them.
But the hawkish Navarro is an outlier, even in the Trump administration. Other Trump nominees are more comfortable with free trade and loath to risk a trade war with China, or anybody. Private-equity billionaire Wilbur Ross, Trump's pick to head the Commerce Department, insists there will be no trade wars and says the main effort will be urging other countries to buy more US products. Ross has personally benefited from relatively free access to the Chinese market, and he knows how tit-for-tat sanctions would hurt American companies and the US economy.
Trump's Treasury nominee, Steve Mnuchin, is a Goldman Sachs alum and Wall Street establishmentarian who seems unlikely to threaten the global economic order that has enriched the shareholder class. And Trump's pick to be ambassador to China, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, comes form a state that has benefited from open trade with China and other countries through agricultural exports that account for 22% of the jobs in Iowa.
So Trump has set up a dichotomy on trade within his own economic team. The Trump transition team says Navarro's trade council will generate "innovative strategies in trade negotiations," study the evolution of the manufacturing sector and find better ways to match blue-collar workers with available jobs.
On paper, such councils are subordinate to Cabinet-level officials such as the Commerce and Treasury secretaries. So Navarro will be an adviser while Ross and Mnuchin will be policymakers more likely to determine final outcomes. Trump, of course, will be the ultimate decider, and Navarro or anybody else inside or outside the White House could end up being more influential than Ross or Mnuchin, if he or she gets Trump's ear at the right time.
But Trump may be setting his economic team up for internal dissension if Navarro and his council feel ignored, or if Trump's Cabinet picks feel undermined by lower-ranking White House operatives. Few administrations escape first-year palace intrigue as various appointees jockey for power, and Trump's freewheeling, unconventional approach could generate more fireworks than usual. A year from now, whoever is still around can probably be declared the winner.

Eh, eh, tekst oko srednje klase smrducka!

Đe Obama bio, nije valjda da Buš vlada do 20. januara?

Tramp će ili obnoviti srednju klasu ili pripremiti teren za socijalističku revoluciju!

http://www.b92.net/zivot/vesti.php?yyyy=2016&mm=12&dd=26&nav_id=1214140

Tramp: Svet je pre moje pobede bio sumorno mesto bez nade

http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2016&mm=12&dd=27&nav_category=78&nav_id=1214502

Oh no, they're everywhere!

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-national-security-threats-youre-underestimating-18834

Kad je Obama ušao u Belu kuću imao je demokratski kongres i demokratski senat, ali par dana posle njegove inauguracije ljudi širom Amerike su počeli da protestvuju već protiv prvog zakona koji je Obama hteo da uvede. To je bio početak nastanka Tea Party pokreta. Demokrate danas imaju to iskustvo da se bore protiv Trampovih bedastoća, i već su napravili i jednostavno uputstvo za borbu protiv novog trampovskog poretka:

INDIVISIBLE: A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR RESISTING THE TRUMP AGENDA

https://www.indivisibleguide.com/web

Na sajtu je moguće preuzeti i PDF i DOCX format fajla, za one koji to više vole oflajn.

Trampe, samo čvrsto!

Narod se nagoni na ideju da će Tramp biti uklonjen s mesta predsednika:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv28Hnx9uCg

Intelligence chief: Russia's election interference went far beyond hacks

Quote

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says the Russian government's interference with the United States election went far beyond the now highly publicized hacks of Democratic email accounts, which were merely one part of a multilayered campaign of propaganda and deception.
The intelligence leader outlined various methods wielded by Moscow to interfere with U.S. institutions during Thursday morning testimony on cyberattacks before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The testimony comes at a point of tension between the U.S. intelligence community and Donald Trump. The president-elect, set to meet with intelligence brass on Friday, has repeatedly cast doubt on the U.S. government's conclusion that Russian state-sponsored cyberattacks sought to influence the election.
At the hearing, Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., asked Clapper if he could address not only classified information but also the relevance of publicly available information in seeing the full picture of Russia's activities.
"While there has been a lot of focus on the hacking, this is actually part of a multifaceted campaign that the Russians mounted," Clapper told the committee.
Clapper pointed to the Kremlin-funded TV channel RT, previously called Russia Today. "Of course RT, which is heavily supported, funded by the Russian government, was very, very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system," he continued.
He said Russia would exploit any crack in the United States' integrity — such as the nation's alleged hypocrisy about human rights — through social media, fake news, propaganda and so on.
The totality of Russia's effort, regardless of its ultimate impact, was a concern to Clapper as both an intelligence official and as a U.S. citizen, he said.
Earlier in the testimony, Clapper said the campaign against the U.S. also entailed the kind of "classical propaganda" that Russia has long used, especially when "promulgating disinformation."
Marcel Lettre, the under secretary of defense for intelligence, said the U.S. needs to look at ways to "impose costs" against adversaries for such actions on a case-by-case basis as they arise. The U.S. can work to deter and respond to attacks through methods like President Obama's recent sanctions, but they can be much broader as well, he said.
"From the military's perspective, we're concerned not only with Russia's cyberhacking but also with a range of aggressive actions by Russia across multiple regions of the globe. So we look to impose costs on Russia by a range of measures across multiple regions in partnership with our allies, through NATO, where we can to push back Russian actions and deter future actions."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., did not appear too impressed with this "case-by-case" tactic. "It's not a strategy," he said.
Earlier, McCain suggested that if Russia had in fact succeeded in altering the outcome of an election that it would constitute an attack on the United States. He asked Clapper if he agreed with that assessment.
"Whether or not that constitutes an act of war I think is a very heavy policy call that I don't believe the intelligence community should make," Clapper replied, "but would carry in my view great gravity."

Pomalo je i komično kad vidimo da pričaju stvari tipa "Blatili su nas na televiziji da nismo dosledni u poštovanju ljuckih prava". O rly?

Бајден у очају: Трампе, вријеме је да одрастеш

http://www.in4s.net/bajden-trampe-vrijeme-je-da-odrastes/

Istraživanje tvrdi da bi gašenje Obamacarea kojim republikanci prete ukinulo i jedan i po milion poslova i imalo trilionski negativan impakt na BNP Sjedinjenih Američkih Država. Videćemo... Ako ih ne smekša to da bi milioni ljudi ostali bez zdravstvene zaštite, možda ih ovo trgne?  Ako je razumno uverljivo, naravno...

Obamacare repeal costs: 3 million jobs gone, $1.5 trillion in lost gross state product

Quote

Spending less by getting rid of Obamacare could end up costing a whole lot more.
Up to 3 million jobs in the health sector and other areas would be lost if certain key provisions of the Affordable Care Act are repealed by Congress, a new report said Thursday.
At the same time, ending those provisions could lead to a whopping $1.5 trillion reduction in gross state product from 2019 through 2023, according to the study.
"Repealing key parts of the ACA could trigger massive job losses and a slump in consumer and business spending that would affect all sectors of state economies," said Leighton Ku, director of the Center for Health Policy Research and professor at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University.
Ku is the lead author of the report, which was issued by the Milken Institute and the Commonwealth Fund.
The report comes as President-elect Donald Trump and the new Congress are moving toward repealing parts of the ACA through the budget reconciliation process.
"The immediate and most visible effect of ACA repeal would be the loss of coverage and access to care for millions of people who have gained insurance because of the law," said Sara Collins, vice president for health-care coverage and access at the Commonwealth Fund.
"This study points to even larger potential economic effects that would be detrimental to the health and well-being of millions more," Collins said.
The estimate of job and state product losses are based on a scenario in which Congress defunds federal subsidies that most Obamacare customers receive to help lower their monthly insurance premium costs, and also gets rid of funding to cover adults who became newly eligible for Medicaid under the ACA.
Repealing both provisions would save the federal government $140 billion in health-care spending, the report found. And as that funding spigot dried up, it would lead to job losses and a drop in gross state product, the report said.
The study notes that most of the federal funding for Obamacare flows to hospitals, health clinics, pharmacies and other medical providers, who in turn hire and pay staff and purchase goods and services.
The biggest job losses would occur in California, with 334,000 lost jobs, Florida, with 181,000 lost jobs, Texas, with 175,000 lost positions, and Pennysylvania, New York and Ohio, each of which would lose more than 125,000 jobs, the report estimates.
One-third of the job losses would be in the health-care sector, according to the report. The remaining two-thirds of job losses are expected to come from construction, real estate, retail, finance and insurance.
As with other reports estimating the effects of Obamacare repeal, the economic downsides could be mitigated, or completely offset by a replacement plan for the ACA.
But so far, Trump and the Republican-led Congress have not committed to such a plan. So researchers have been unable to estimate the ultimate effects of a replacement plan.

Donald J. TrumpVerified account
‏@realDonaldTrump

Meryl Streep, one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood, doesn't know me but attacked last night at the Golden Globes. She is a Hillary flunky who lost big.

Tesko da je Meril precenjena

Sad sam odgledala, tja, malo patetike, ali ne bez izvesnog dostojanstva. Slagali se ili ne, zena je cenjena u svom poslu i osetila je potrebu da iskaze svoj revolt ovim putem. Ima malo zbunjenih faca u publici, pa mozda i nekih kojima je govor neprijatan, laznih suza i osmeha, takodje. Anadr dej in Holivud.

http://youtu.be/NxyGmyEby40

Oće i ova se kandiduje za četr' godine, frizuru je spremila....
'Kad neko moćan upotrebi silu....' 
ona priča o tome, arogantni ljigavac, američki stereotip....
polovina je gleda zbunjeno i pita se šta li ova kenja....

Jbt, da nisam sad guglo osto bi u uvjerenju da je stripova britanka

Kad ono born in nju džrzi

Američki farmaceutski giganti izgubili su 25 milijardi dolara za samo 20 minuta tokom konferencije Donalda Trampa.

http://www.b92.net/biz/vesti/svet.php?yyyy=2017&mm=01&dd=12&nav_id=1219407

Donald Rumsfeld štucnuo

Ljudi, svašta će biti!

http://www.blic.rs/kultura/vesti/nikol-kidman-kako-god-tramp-je-sada-tu-treba-da-ga-podrzimo/59ppjr6

Trump's cyber-guru Giuliani runs ancient 'easily hackable website'




Mada, pojašnjenje:

http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/01/about-that-giuliani-website.html

Бре, Меланију нико (још) не ферма 


А и овај Маринко, ко да је ђувегија па се увредио. 




http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/scena.147.html:644656-Marinko-ne-ide-kod-Melanije-u-Vasington

Neoliberalizam na konopcima:

Congress will consider proposal to raise H-1B minimum wage to $100,000

QuotePresident-elect Donald Trump is just a week away from taking office. From the start of his campaign, he has promised big changes to the US immigration system. For both Trump's advisers and members of Congress, the H-1B visa program, which allows many foreign workers to fill technology jobs, is a particular focus.
One major change to that system is already under discussion: making it harder for companies to use H-1B workers to replace Americans by simply giving the foreign workers a raise. The "Protect and Grow American Jobs Act," introduced last week by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. and Scott Peters, D-Calif., would significantly raise the wages of workers who get H-1B visas. If the bill becomes law, the minimum wage paid to H-1B workers would rise to at least $100,000 annually, and be adjusted it for inflation. Right now, the minimum is $60,000.
The sponsors say that would go a long way toward fixing some of the abuses of the H-1B program, which critics say is currently used to simply replace American workers with cheaper, foreign workers. In 2013, the top nine companies acquiring H-1B visas were technology outsourcing firms, according to an analysis by a critic of the H-1B program. (The 10th is Microsoft.) The thinking goes that if minimum H-1B salaries are brought closer to what high-skilled tech employment really pays, the economic incentive to use it as a worker-replacement program will drop off.
The H-1B program isn't supposed to replace any US workers at all. Rather, it's meant to help US companies get skilled labor they can't hire domestically. But critics of the program say abuse has been widespread and point to examples of high-profile mass layoffs in which American IT workers were sometimes ordered to train their foreign replacements. Last year, the Los Angeles Times reported that Southern California Edison had laid off hundreds of IT workers and filled their positions with workers from two Indian outsourcing firms, Tata Consulting and Infosys. Disney was also accused of replacing American IT workers with H-1B workers from India; two of the Disney IT workers filed a lawsuit against their former employer last year.
"We need to ensure we can retain the world's best and brightest talent," said Issa in a statement about the bill. "At the same time, we also need to make sure programs are not abused to allow companies to outsource and hire cheap foreign labor from abroad to replace American workers."
The H-1B program offers 65,000 visas each fiscal year, with an additional 20,000 reserved for foreign workers who have advanced degrees from US colleges and universities. The visas are awarded by lottery each year. Last year, the government received more than 236,000 applications for those visas.
End to arbitrage The case that H-1B has been used as a cost-cutting program was made directly to Congress by Prof. Ronil Hira of Howard University, who testified about the Southern California Edison layoffs. Hira submitted testimony (PDF) claiming that SCE IT specialists and engineers get paid an average wage of $110,466, while H-1B workers at Infosys and Tata get average annual wages of $70,882 and $65,565, respectively.
Hira suggested raising the wages of H-1B workers to "clean up some of the most flagrant abuses." He also suggested increased enforcement by the Secretary of Labor and random audits of H-1B employers, added safeguards which haven't yet seen a champion in Congress.
Harj Taggar, founder of tech recruiting firm TripleByte, told Ars in an interview that outsourcing firms' dominance of the system has discouraged his clients, typically small to mid-sized startups, from participating in the visa lottery.
That could change, though, if minimum wages for H-1B visas are raised. Outsourcing firms might find it more difficult to profit from the difference between the market wage and what their workers are typically paid, leaving more visas for others.
"You'll start seeing Bay Area technology companies say, if the chances [of getting a visa through the lottery] have gone from 5 percent to 30 percent now that there's less competition, you'll see more engage in the program," said Taggar. "If you raise the minimum wage requirement to $100,000, that will still fall below the average that engineers in particular, in particular those who have been working for a few years, will command in salary."
Reuters reported yesterday that one senior Trump adviser is considering a more radical change to the H-1B system: doing away with the visa lottery altogether and just selling visas to the highest bidder. The news service reported that Trump seemed open to changing the H-1B system at a meeting last month with top tech CEOs, but he was "searching for a middle ground." At the end of the day, the president-elect is "not hostile" to the H-1B program, according to one source, but may choose to raise the cost of getting the visas.

Trampe, primi bar Trumana!

Verovatno ste već svesni da žena koju Tramp želi da postavi za ministarku obrazovanja, jelte, ne veruje u koncept javnih škola, misli da su nastavnici preplaćeni, rođena je u bogactvu, brat joj je osnivač Black Watera, plus nema ni fakultet.

Ako niste, evo korisnog spiska:






Pa onda malo detaljnije:

Betsy DeVos Wants to Use America's Schools to Build "God's Kingdom"


I, urnebesno, žena smatra da američke škole treba da imaju oružje na gotovs jer, jebiga, nikad ne znaš kad će međedi da nasrnu:

Betsy DeVos says guns in schools may be necessary to protect students from grizzly bears


Statistiku ne treba fetišizovati, ali neko je na tviteru postovao da se od 2013. godine do danas u američkim školama pucnjava dogodila čak 210 puta, a u istom periodu broj napada od strane grizlija je stabilno bio na nuli.

Hej, ukinuće Darvilovu teoriju, bigbang i planete!?!

Do jaaaaaaaja, biće zanimljivija Amerika od svih teoretičara zavera!
Negde sam vido po jutjubovima da i Tramp pripada onim Flat Eartherima!
Urnebes!
Nikad bolji izbori na svetu, mora se pretplatim na sve Amerske kanale i samo njiovu tivi da gledam!

Amerika u snovima, Amerika zemlja velika!

Živimo za dan kad će Amerika izabrati vegetarijanskog predsednika 
This Will Be Trump's First Official Meal As President

QuoteFun fact: Every four years, an inaugural luncheon is held for the newly instated president by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. The Committee's website explains that the luncheons provide an opportunity for speeches, gift presentations, and toasts. No matter how you feel about the incoming president, this luncheon is happening, just as is has since 1879, so we might as well discuss what kind of food will be served.

According to GrubStreet, Donald Trump and guests will be served a seafood course of Maine lobster and Gulf shrimp with a saffron sauce and peanut crumbles. Next, he'll get grilled Seven Hills Angus beef in a dark chocolate and juniper jus. The beef will be served with a side of potato gratin. For dessert, chocolate soufflé with cherry vanilla ice cream. Since the meal is held to honor president-elect Donald Trump, each part will, of course, be eaten with a fork. Even the champagne. (Okay, okay maybe not the champagne.)

Though there are countless differences between the president-elect and President Obama, their inaugural menus actually look pretty similar. The 57th inaugural luncheon, held in 2013, also had a first-course seafood dish, a main meat dish, and a dessert. Specifically, the Obamas feasted on steamed lobster and New England clam chowder, hickory grilled bison accompanied by a red potato horseradish cake and Hudson Valley apple pie with sour cream ice cream.

You can explore the menus of the last nine inaugural luncheons, here. You'll learn plenty of strangely fascinating presidential food facts — like, that in 1985, Reagan ate veal medallions — and it will be a great distraction from whatever it is you happen to be procrastinating.

http://www.b92.net/biz/vesti/svet.php?yyyy=2017&mm=01&dd=19&nav_id=1222016

@realDonaldTrump
"Getting ready to leave for Washington, D.C. The journey begins"!

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/822066132307808256?p=v#


Uživo RTS1
Inauguracija Donalda Trampa
Petak 17:20h

Žestok tekst

   http://standard.rs/svet/36772-ко-је-стварно-рекс-тилерсон

Moth named after Donald Trump for uncanny resemblance




Tja... Nije baš uncanny...

Objašnjenje para vredno:
Trump's Treasury pick failed to disclose $100 million in assets — until the last minute

Quote

Treasury secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin failed to disclose about $100 million in assets and a number of business directorships to the Senate until the night before his confirmation hearing.
Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee jumped on this mistake during Mnuchin's confirmation hearing, saying that he was attempting to hide assets from his disclosure forms.
Among the assets that Mnuchin failed to disclose included real estate in New York City, Los Angeles, and Mexico.
Additionally, Mnuchin failed to disclose his role as director of a number of investment funds including a subsidiary of his hedge fund based in the Cayman Islands and another in Anguilla.
Democrats used the disclosure to question both Mnuchin's honesty as well as his qualification as a representative of the American public, contrasting him with Trump's repeated promise to "drain the swamp."
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden said that Mnuchin failed to disclose these holdings until Wyden's staff brought them to the nominee's attention.
"This was not self-corrected. The only reason it came to light was my staff found it and told you that it had to be corrected," said Wyden, the ranking member on the committee.
Mnuchin defended himself by saying that the omission was due to the complexities of the disclosure forms.
"I think as you all can appreciate filling out these government forms is quite complicated," said Mnuchin. "There were many things I expected in this job including having to sell everything, but the amount of paperwork in filling out the forms ... was quite a job."
Mnuchin went on to say that "any oversight was unintentional" in regard to omitted assets.
Additionally, Mnuchin defended the Cayman Island and Anguilla holding companies by saying the shell companies were created for his hedge fund to allow certain types of investments for pension funds and nonprofits. The Treasury nominee said he did not benefit from the setup.
"Let me just be clear again: I did not use a Cayman Island entity in any way to avoid taxes for myself," said Mnuchin. "I paid US taxes on all that income. So there was no benefit to me from the Cayman entity."
The rest of the hearing was equally as contentious with Democrats and some Republicans hitting Mnuchin for foreclosures at a bank owned by his fund, Trump's foreign investments, and regulation of banks.
This is also the second day in a row a Trump nominee was questioned for investment disclosures. Trump's Health and Human Services secretary nominee Tom Price was questioned about his investments in healthcare companies during his time in Congress during his testimony on Wednesday.

Patrijarh druge Srbije udario na spasitelja prve:

George Soros calls Trump a 'would-be dictator' who 'is going to fail'

QuoteGeorge Soros thinks President-elect Donald Trump will fail — and that will be just fine with the billionaire investor and supporter of progressive causes.
"I personally am convinced that he is going to fail," Soros told Bloomberg during an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Failure will come "not because of people like me who would like him to fail, but because his ideas that guide him are inherently self-contradictory and the contradictions are already embodied by his advisors."
Soros spoke less than 24 hours before Trump, himself a billionaire businessman and political agitator, &doc=104229019"> takes the oath of office as the 45th president . Trump's Cabinet picks have been undergoing a sometimes-grueling round of confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill, though it's not clear if any will be rejected.
During the 2016 campaign, Soros donated close to $20 million to various causes, including more than $10.5 million to Trump's opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton , according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
He has been unrelenting in his criticism of Trump, and unloaded on him again during the Davos interview.
"I have described him as an impostor and a con man and a would-be dictator," Soros said. "But he's only a would-be dictator because I'm confident that the Constitution and the institutions of the United States are strong enough. ... He would be a dictator if he could get away with it, but he won't be able to."
Trump's unexpected win in November hurt Soros beyond politics and ideology — he is believed to have lost more than $1 billion in trades he made that would have benefited if the market went down. Instead, a monthlong rally after the election cost Soros big.
However, he said Thursday he still believes the market is headed lower.
"Uncertainty is the enemy of long-term investment," Soros said. "I don't think the markets are going to do very well. Right now they are still celebrating. But when reality comes in," his bets against the market "will prevail."
Soros said Trump will act as a divisive figure because "anyone who disagrees with him is not really part of the people."
"It is impossible to predict exactly how Trump is going to act, because he hasn't actually thought it through," Soros said. "He didn't expect to win. He was surprised. He was engaged in building his brand and improving it by his success in attracting crowds. It was really only when he got elected that he started to seriously think whatever he is going to do."

The Creepy Religion That Explains All Of Trump's Actions

Tramp vezao kravatu do poda, saplešće se

Vežite se, polijećemo!