webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Wharton U Penn MBA

morano foghorn fox

12 24

DDSB

Biden 'doubling down' in the face of 'absurdity' with latest climate push, expert says

Fox Business

Climate Depot executive editor Marc Morano reacts to comments from a Senate hearing on climate concerns and sounds off on the Biden ...

nyt ben keys

ditch home; extremiest arent you? cli hypoc on blast hdline; cli obsession ethos; expose absurdity; wharton prof; un says extreme wether not increasing; own hse in flood zone; nyt long hist gone after home racism, cli emergency, houses more dang to cli than cars; doing all the things they tell us not to do [kerry pvt plane?] giant homes oprah lame duck joe pedal to metal on his cli agenda; new emission targets; cuts GG 60 percent by 2035; gum up sys w new regs; very easy to undo; climate agenda hates us, hates---. hates am way, 2x down in face of ... magical thinking paperwork climate agenda get us out of paris treaty by going to congress woman fear based agenda, requieres their intervention; misnamed IRA is really the grn new deal; get rid of epa, ? endangerment finding; day 1 reverse agancy pentagon abolish every climate agy and goal do fast and rapid, do in 2 wks

---

Latest

Oct. 29, 2024

Guest Essay

Climate Change Should Make You Rethink Homeownership

Renting is quickly becoming a better way for many people to enjoy high-risk places with much less financial baggage.

By Benjamin Keys

May 7, 2023

Guest Essay

Your Homeowners’ Insurance Bill Is the Canary in the Climate Coal Mine

Wharton’s Ben Keys on how climate change is already reshaping the insurance and housing markets — and how our denial is only making the problem worse.

By Benjamin Keys

===

note hypocrisy on cancel culture BS horrible irony is that silence israel protest BOOSTS genocide in gaza

12 23 an

america’s prestigious universities play a big role in determining who gets into America’s wealthy elite.

A degree from Harvard, Penn, or M.I.T., to take three examples, is a meal ticket to a lucrative job on Wall Street or a corporate law firm and to the richest and most influential people in the land.

But as America becomes increasingly stratified by wealth, those tickets are easily abused.

Universities that give preference in admissions to the children or grandchildren of major donors serve to widen inequality even further.

Universities that allow major donors to influence what is taught or expressed on campus could be seen to suppress ideas that threaten the wealthy — which could chill freedom of expression and fuel social resentment.

Which brings us to the latest imbroglio.

Last Tuesday, the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, and M.I.T. tried to give precise answers to questions from members of Congress about whether their university cultures had encouraged hostility towards Jews — hostility that has surged since Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel and Israel’s attack on Gaza in response.

In their opening remarks, all three denied it, and repeatedly condemned antisemitism.

Then Elise Stefanik, a Republican representative from New York (and herself a Harvard graduate) asked a yes or no question: would calls for genocide of Jews on campus violate their codes of conduct or harassment policies?

The presidents hedged. “If the speech turns into conduct, yes, it can be harassment,” Penn’s president, M. Elizabeth Magill, a former dean of Stanford Law School, replied in lawyer-like fashion.

“I’m asking if specifically calling for the genocide of Jews — does that constitute bullying or harassment?” Stefanik pressed her point.

“If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment,” said Magill.

“So the answer is yes?”

“It is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman,” Magill said.

Faced with the same question, Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay, also temporized. “It can be,” she said, “depending on the context.”

The university presidents should have answered unambiguously and unequivocally that calls for genocide of any group are intolerable.

Their failure to do so has fueled a firestorm.

Ross Stevens, a hedge fund manager, said he would withdraw a $100 million gift to Penn. Other wealthy Penn donors called for Magill to resign.

Even prior to the hearing, a campaign had been launched by some of Wall Street’s most powerful figures to oust all three university presidents for failing to adequately condemn Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel.

The influential board of advisers of Penn’s Wharton School’s, chaired by Marc Rowan of Apollo Global Management, one of the world’s largest private equity firms, called on alumni to withhold donations to Penn.

The billionaire investor Bill Ackman, Harvard alumnus and head of New York hedge fund Pershing Square Capital Management, called for the three university presidents to be fired.

The day after their testimony, Magill and Gay issued statements in efforts to contain the damage.

But on Saturday evening, after an emergency meeting of Penn’s board of trustees, Magill resigned under pressure.

Over the weekend, calls from donors for Harvard’s Claudine Gay to resign grew louder, as prominent donors demanded her ouster, too.

I can well understand the anger and frustration of these donors. In their congressional testimony, the university presidents should have been clearer that their institutions do not tolerate calls for genocide. Period.

But to use their power as major donors to force or seek the ouster of these presidents is almost as repugnant as the failures of these presidents to unambiguously condemn calls for genocide. It endangers the autonomy of America’s universities.

Who’s kidding whom? Those of us who have spent our lifetimes teaching in prestigious universities are well aware of the influence of big donors. The major job of today’s university presidents is to solicit money, and their largest targets are typically denizens of Wall Street.

For the same reason, boards of trustees are packed with wealthy alumni, often from the Street, who routinely veto candidates for university presidentships harboring views they find offensive.

But not until now have major donors so brazenly used their financial influence to hound presidents out of office for failing to come out as clearly as the donors would like on an issue of campus speech or expression.

As a Jew, I cannot help but worry, too, that the actions of these donors will fuel the very antisemitism they claim to oppose — based on the perilous stereotype of wealthy Jewish bankers controlling the world.

*Robert Reich is a professor at Berkeley and was secretary of labor under Bill Clinton. You can find his writing at https://robertreich.substack.com/.*

---

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/heritage-foundation/

...

Influence

In January 2020, for the third consecutive year, Heritage was ranked as the top think tank in the “Significant Impact on Public Policy” category of the 2019 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report from the University of Pennsylvania’s Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program.In its annual ranking, the Penn report considers more than 8,200 think tanks in the world and surveys the opinion of nearly 4,000 journalists, donors, and policy experts. [39]

Heritage’s policy range covers dozens of subject areas, and most every major issue that affects federal and state elected officials. In 2019 Heritage policy experts testified 33 times before Congressional committees, and produced more than 200 advisory documents, including 12 special policy reports. [40]

Heritage has had major influence over both policy making and policy successes during several Republican presidential administrations, in particular those of Reagan and Trump. [41] It also has been critical of Republican presidents when they have rejected Heritage’s policy goals[42] and accomplished major policy objectives during a Democratic presidential administration. [43] [44]

REAGAN ADMINISTRATION

During the 1980 presidential election, Heritage produced Mandate for Leadership, a 20 volume, 3,000-page guide of policy advice for whomever won the presidency. After winning the election, President Ronald Reagan delivered a 1,100-page abridged edition of the document to attendees of his first cabinet meeting. A follow-up set of recommendations was published for Reagan’s second term in office. [45] [46]

According *The Atlantic*, the Reagan Administration implemented at least 60 percent of the proposals. The late right-leaning essayist and National Review founder William F. Buckley, Jr., quipped that Heritage’s influence was the reason “Mr. Reagan’s tenure was 60 percent successful.” Analyzing 22 policy ideas put forward by Reagan in his second inaugural address in 1985, a *New York Times* report noted that “the wording of the president’s speech and the foundation’s document were different” but “many of the proposals were strikingly similar.” [47] [48]

Examples of Heritage ideas the Reagan administration turned into federal policy included a 23 percent reduction in federal taxes across all income groups, the creation of “enterprise zones” (tax and regulatory relief offered to entrepreneurs willing to invest in blighted urban areas), and the Strategic Defense Initiative (research on a defensive shield to protect the nation from a nuclear missile attack). [49] [50]

GEORGE H.W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION

....

1020 add generic mba

Don't Let Trump Fool You - He Doesn't Have an MBA from Wharton

Noor Al-Sibai Raw Story

January 11, 2018

President Donald Trump likes to brag about having gone to the Wharton School of Finance, a school known for their elite MBA program. As it turns out, however, Trump never got an MBA from the school.

Example 6:

ARMSTRONG, J. Scott: ( Ph.D. MIT); Professor, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. My area of expertise involves forecasting methods. I have been involved to preparing and evaluating forecasts relevant to climate change since 2007.

This last cosigner I will discuss is a professor at a business school in the United States. As I understand his expertise, it is in business forecasting. What does that have to do with climate forecasting? Not much. Perhaps there is some crossover though? I recall that JS Armstrong was an author on a polar bear forecasting paper a few years ago. How did that turn out? Not very well. It was strongly rebutted for being incorrect in this paper. The following quote from the abstract tells it all (AGS stands for Armstrong, Green and Soon (the authors of the faulty paper):

We evaluate the AGS audit and show how AGS are mistaken or misleading on every claim. We provide evidence that general circulation models are useful in forecasting future climate conditions and that corporate and government leaders are relying on these models to do so… We show that the allegations of failure to follow the principles of forecasting espoused by AGS are either incorrect or are based on misconceptions about the Arctic environment, polar bear biology, or statistical and mathematical methods. … In summary, we show that the AGS audit offers no valid criticism of the USGS conclusion that global warming poses a serious threat to the future welfare of polar bears and that it only serves to distract from reasoned public-policy debate.

There many are other examples that list no degree, affiliation, or expertise, such as:

BEE, Roger: ();

BEETHAM, Barry: ();

==

WHARTON RISK MANAGEMENT AND DECISION PROCESSES CENTER

The Center's mission is to "carry out a program of basic and applied research to promote effective policies and programs for low-probability events with potentially catastrophic consequences. The Center is especially concerned with natural and technological hazards and with the integration of industrial risk management policies with insurance." (http://grace.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/; accessed 9/19/02)

Corporate Associates of the Center:

(http://grace.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/corplist.html; accessed 9/19/02)

==