headers
Jim Devine | 1 Dec 2009 15:28
Picon

it's still with us, despite all doubts

racism, that is.

New York TIMES / December 1, 2009
In Job Hunt, College Degree Can’t Close Racial Gap

By MICHAEL LUO

Johnny R. Williams, 30, would appear to be an unlikely person to have
to fret about the impact of race on his job search, with companies
like JPMorgan Chase and an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago on
his résumé.

But after graduating from business school last year and not having
much success garnering interviews, he decided to retool his résumé,
scrubbing it of any details that might tip off his skin color. His
membership, for instance, in the African-American business students
association? Deleted.

“If they’re going to X me,” Mr. Williams said, “I’d like to at least
get in the door first.”

Similarly, Barry Jabbar Sykes, 37, who has a degree in mathematics
from Morehouse College, a historically black college in Atlanta, now
uses Barry J. Sykes in his continuing search for an information
technology position, even though he has gone by Jabbar his whole life.

“Barry sounds like I could be from Ireland,” he said.

That race remains a serious obstacle in the job market for
African-Americans, even those with degrees from respected colleges,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Louis Proyect | 1 Dec 2009 18:51
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Goldman employees arming themselves against the sans-culotte

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=ahD2WoDAL9h0

Arming Goldman With Pistols Against Public: Alice Schroeder
Commentary by Alice Schroeder

Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- “I just wrote my first reference for a gun 
permit,” said a friend, who told me of swearing to the good 
character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who applied to the 
local police for a permit to buy a pistol. The banker had told 
this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on 
firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a 
populist uprising against the bank.

I called Goldman Sachs spokesman Lucas van Praag to ask whether 
it’s true that Goldman partners feel they need handguns to protect 
themselves from the angry proletariat. He didn’t call me back. The 
New York Police Department has told me that “as a preliminary 
matter” it believes some of the bankers I inquired about do have 
pistol permits. The NYPD also said it will be a while before it 
can name names.

While we wait, Goldman has wrapped itself in the flag of Warren 
Buffett, with whom it will jointly donate $500 million, part of an 
effort to burnish its image -- and gain new Goldman clients. 
Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein also 
reversed himself after having previously called Goldman’s greed 
“God’s work” and apologized earlier this month for having 
participated in things that were “clearly wrong.”

Has it really come to this? Imagine what emotions must be
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Julio Huato | 1 Dec 2009 19:14
Picon
Gravatar

Obama's betrayal of hope

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02policy.html

I voted -- and asked people -- to vote for Obama.  I made my case on
the grounds of what would better advance the class struggle.  I still
think that, with the information then known, it was the best decision.
 I didn't think I had high hopes or expectations about him as an
individual.  I did think though that, under the right conditions, his
personal background made it possible for him to become a decisive
reformer, even if not an FDR.  But I think I was entirely wrong on
that.  He is not one of us.  Period.  I don't entirely understand his
motivations, but that matters little now.  I am convinced that this
decision offsets anything historically progressive that Obama may
accomplish -- if at all.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
Permalink | Reply | 17 comments |
headers
Doug Henwood | 1 Dec 2009 20:00
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [lbo-talk] Obama's betrayal of hope


On Dec 1, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Julio Huato wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02policy.html
>
> I voted -- and asked people -- to vote for Obama.  I made my case on
> the grounds of what would better advance the class struggle.  I still
> think that, with the information then known, it was the best decision.
>  I didn't think I had high hopes or expectations about him as an
> individual.  I did think though that, under the right conditions, his
> personal background made it possible for him to become a decisive
> reformer, even if not an FDR.  But I think I was entirely wrong on
> that.  He is not one of us.  Period.  I don't entirely understand his
> motivations, but that matters little now.  I am convinced that this
> decision offsets anything historically progressive that Obama may
> accomplish -- if at all.

I admire you for saying this. Thanks.

Doug
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
raghu | 1 Dec 2009 20:34
Picon

Re: Obama's betrayal of hope

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Julio Huato <juliohuato@...> wrote:
> He is not one of us.  Period.  I don't entirely understand his
> motivations, but that matters little now.  I am convinced that this
> decision offsets anything historically progressive that Obama may
> accomplish -- if at all.

I don't know why you are surprised. Obama never promised to leave
Afghanistan. He has always supported this war as the "good war".
-raghu.

--

-- 
Did you hear about the insomniac, neurotic, agnostic dyslexic? He
stayed up all night worryin...
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Louis Proyect | 1 Dec 2009 20:45
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Obama's betrayal of hope

raghu wrote:
> I don't know why you are surprised. Obama never promised to leave
> Afghanistan. He has always supported this war as the "good war".

The Globe and Mail (Canada)
November 4, 2008 Tuesday

Military sees Obama as key to victory in Afghanistan;
Democrat's popularity abroad will make European nations less 
reluctant to contribute more troops, generals believe

BYLINE: DOUG SAUNDERS

DATELINE: LONDON

In normally hawkish military and diplomatic circles, it is being 
called an "Obama boost": a widespread belief that the war in 
Afghanistan may be winnable only if Barack Obama is elected 
president tonight.

To a surprising degree, military and government officials in the 
United States and Europe have pegged their hopes for victory in 
Afghanistan or a reduction in violence to Mr. Obama's ability to 
win over skeptical European audiences and persuade them to 
contribute large numbers of troops to a war that is widely seen to 
be in serious trouble.

Amid fast-increasing violence and declining public support in 
Afghanistan, many top U.S., British and Canadian military 
commanders and government officials involved with the war say in
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Max Sawicky | 1 Dec 2009 21:06
Picon

Re: Obama's betrayal of hope

 I am convinced that this
decision offsets anything historically progressive that Obama may
accomplish -- if at all.
********************************

I am 3/4's of the way there.  LBJ did a lot of good on the domestic side,
even as he extended a disastrous foreign policy.  Obama is way behind
the pace on the domestic front, thus far.

Health care is going to suck, but that's a project.  You have to pass something,
then keep working at it.  It will be revised as we go, the worse our
politics get,
the worse the program will get.  Financial regulation is going to come
to naught, IMO.
That's already a lost cause.

>From my bunghole, US foreign policy sucks eggs, all the way around.
If we go on some deficit-reduction toot including "entitlement reform,"
I am off the rez.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@...
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Max Sawicky | 1 Dec 2009 21:29
Picon

Re: Obama's betrayal of hope

 I am convinced that this
decision offsets anything historically progressive that Obama may
accomplish -- if at all.
********************************

I am 3/4's of the way there.  LBJ did a lot of good on the domestic side,
even as he extended a disastrous foreign policy.  Obama is way behind
the pace on the domestic front, thus far.

Health care is going to suck, but that's a project.  You have to pass something,
then keep working at it.  It will be revised as we go.  If our
politics get worse, the
program will too.  Financial regulation is going to come to naught, IMO.
That's already a lost cause.  It was lost from the beginning.

>From my bunghole, US foreign policy sucks eggs, all the way around.
If we go on some deficit-reduction toot including "entitlement reform,"
I am off the rez.

All this 'why are you surprised' stuff is tedious.  Nobody is surprised.
The possibility for Obama was an FDR-lite record.  FDR looked awful
going in as well, and stayed awful for much longer than BHO has been
in office.

An LBJ path is much more dubious, though still not out of the realm of
possibility.  At best, going down this road will still have tragic consequences.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Julio Huato <juliohuato@...> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02policy.html
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Max Sawicky | 1 Dec 2009 21:31
Picon

Re: Obama's betrayal of hope

sorry for double post.  second one is the official version.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Max Sawicky <maxbsawicky@...> wrote:
>  I am convinced that this
> decision offsets anything historically progressive that Obama may
> accomplish -- if at all.
> ********************************
>
> I am 3/4's of the way there.  LBJ did a lot of good on the domestic side,
> even as he extended a disastrous foreign policy.  Obama is way behind
> the pace on the domestic front, thus far.
>
> Health care is going to suck, but that's a project.  You have to pass something,
> then keep working at it.  It will be revised as we go.  If our
> politics get worse, the
> program will too.  Financial regulation is going to come to naught, IMO.
> That's already a lost cause.  It was lost from the beginning.
>
> From my bunghole, US foreign policy sucks eggs, all the way around.
> If we go on some deficit-reduction toot including "entitlement reform,"
> I am off the rez.
>
> All this 'why are you surprised' stuff is tedious.  Nobody is surprised.
> The possibility for Obama was an FDR-lite record.  FDR looked awful
> going in as well, and stayed awful for much longer than BHO has been
> in office.
>
> An LBJ path is much more dubious, though still not out of the realm of
> possibility.  At best, going down this road will still have tragic consequences.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
raghu | 1 Dec 2009 21:58
Picon

Blankfein: "What's good for Goldman Sachs is good for America"

Lloyd 'God's work' Blankfein is still at it. Must be that alleged
sense of humor of his. Or something.

At least GM's Charlie Wilson had the good sense to add a "and vice
versa" to his original quote about "what's good for America". Not this
guy.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/12/01/goldmans-hubris-2/
--------------------------------------------------snip
In my own conversations with Goldman Sachs flacks, they tend to be
adamant that Goldman in fact does no proprietary trading at all:
everything they do is part of serving clients, there’s no separate
prop desk, and yes although the trading desk makes money, it does so
by enhancing the prices and liquidity that Goldman can offer to
clients. So it’s interesting that Blankfein admits to McLean that
Goldman does have purely proprietary profits, even if they’re only 10%
of the total. The fact is that what constitutes a proprietary trade is
very ill-defined, and the argument rapidly devolves into semantics.
But again, insofar as Goldman does have a prop-trading business, it’s
definitely the kind of thing which Adair Turner would consider
“socially useless”.

That said, Goldman’s clients really do value what it offers:

    While some say they do business with Goldman because the firm’s
omnipresence means they have to, there is another reason, which even
its most bitter critics concede: Goldman is better. Why is that?, I
ask a hedge-fund manager who has just finished his own heated
explanation about how he doesn’t trust Goldman. “I can’t really tell
you why it’s better. It’s just better,” he says. “It’s six p.m. in New
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane