Goldman Sachs and the Trillion-Dollar Black Hole, Cell Phones Essentially Trackers, and November Dilemma

Anyone else think we'd be getting to the bottom of the Goldman pile by now?

No?

Want to Know How Goldman Sachs Works?

Goldman Sachs has a distinctive business philosophy:  the client comes first - after Goldman Sachs.

Take the Dragon Systems deal that Goldman Sachs was asked to underwrite.  You will see how Goldman treats its smaller clients:  it gives advice for millions of dollars but does not always deliver, i.e., it proved to be incompetent and misleading.  Goldman has no mystique and only leaves a trail of broken dreams behind it.  Conflicts of interest mean nothing to it.

Goldman Sachs is an appalling bank.

Goldman Sachs and the $580 Million Black Hole 

By Loren Feldman - The New York Times

THE business deal from hell began to crumble even before the Champagne corks were popped.

The deal, the $580 million sale of a highflying technology company, Dragon Systems, had just been approved by its board and congratulations were being exchanged. But even then, at that moment of celebration, there was a sense that something was amiss. 

The chief executive of Dragon had received a congratulatory bottle from the investment bankers representing the acquiring company, a Belgian competitor called Lernout & Hauspie. But he hadn’t heard from Dragon’s own bankers at Goldman Sachs. 

“I still have not received anything from Goldman,” the executive wrote in an e-mail to the other bank. “Do they know something I should know?” 

More than a decade later, that question is still reverberating in a brutal legal battle between Goldman and the founders of Dragon Systems — along with a host of other questions that go to the heart of how financial giants like Goldman operate and what exactly they owe their clients. 

Read the rest of the story here  

Still keep your cell phone on all the time?

That's No Phone. That's My Tracker.

Peter Maass, Megha Rajagopalan, The New York Times
 

Maass and Rajagopalan write: "The device in your purse or jeans that you think is a cellphone - guess again. It is a tracking device that happens to make calls. Let's stop calling them phones. They are trackers."

READ MORE

Wondering how many will stay away from the polls this November because no one running represents their interests?

The Voting Dilemma

Sunday, 15 July 2012

 Lawrence Davidson, To the Point Analyses

 Come November
 
Soon it will be presidential voting time again in the U.S. That four year cycle comes to us with the regularity of a returning comet, accompanied by a shroud of campaign fog that makes a guessing game of discerning fact from fiction when it comes to political promises.

A hefty minority have opted out of this process. Thus, if history runs consistent, when the designated day in November arrives, between 38 and 40% of America's eligible voters will automatically (without even thinking about it) stay away from the polls. Voting appears not to be part of their local culture: they obviously do not think the results touch them in a personal way. They feel their vote is meaningless, and they see the candidates as irredeemable liars not to be taken seriously. The behavior of this minority is not in doubt.

However, there is yet another group of eligible voters whose actions in November are in doubt. These are people who are regular voters, but are now so put off by their usual party candidate that they find it difficult to support him. They may either not vote at all or cast a vote for a minor third party.

Back in 2000 and again in 2004, when George W. Bush, Jr. stood for election, a good number of moderate Republicans suffered a voting dilemma of this sort. Seeing the Republican Party of Dwight Eisenhower and Nelson Rockefeller (whatever we on the left might think of these folks) taken over by a proven neo-con screwball like Bush, Jr. must have made many of them hesitate to vote in their usual fashion. Maybe that is what made the elections so close that only a series of fraudulent maneuvers got George W. elected.

This year an unknown number of progressive Democrats might feel they are facing a similar dilemma. The level of disappointment with Barack Obama among progressives is palpable. He has carried on his predecessor's attack on civil liberties, bailed out the banks instead of jailing the bankers, failed to fight for a public option to healthcare, kowtowed to the Zionists, and used drones to kill (mostly) civilians. That is just a partial list of complaints. One can counterbalance this with a list of good things that Obama has done (withdrew from Iraq, endorsed gay marriage, restored stem cell research, etc.), or argue that at least some of the bad things were a consequence of Republican roadblocks. Still, for those on the progressive end of the Democratic spectrum, Obama is a profound disappointment.

What To Do?

So what do you do? Seek out the Green Party and vote for its candidate, Jill Stein, or boycott the polls altogether? Are such responses to the voting dilemma good ideas?

Well, let's take a look at recent history. Robert Parry of Consortiumnews.com explored this question by looking at the presidential election of 1968. In that year, amidst a worsening war in Viet Nam, Democratic president Lyndon Johnson decided not to run for reelection. There was strong progressive support for the party's anti-war candidate, Eugene McCarthy, but his candidacy failed on the Democratic convention floor and the party nominated Johnson's Vice President, Hubert Humphrey – a man who was closely identified with the war effort.

His Republican rival would be Richard Nixon, a duplicitous and dishonest fellow who was also paranoid and egocentric to a fault. Prior to the election Nixon had secretly encouraged the South Vietnamese not to join in Johnson's efforts to open peace negotiations with North Vietnam. After the election he would expand the war into Laos and Cambodia. Ultimately, Nixon self-destructed with the Watergate scandal.

Parry interviewed Sam Brown, a prominent progressive of that time who served as Eugene McCarthy's Youth Coordinator. When Humphrey became the Democratic candidate and refused to disown an increasingly disastrous war, Brown and those like him faced their voting dilemma. Humphrey's supporters sought to bring these progressives back into the fold by arguing, "Humphrey is a good guy, trust us."

That went over like a lead balloon and the Democrats lost an unknown number of antiwar voters. Perhaps Nixon would have won anyway, but the situation certainly hurt Humphrey's chances for election. Today, Sam Brown "is not proud" of the fact that in 1968 he "cast his ballot for a minor third-party candidate as a throwaway vote." He sees his action as a de facto assist to Nixon's campaign.

Some Guidance

Brown has his own personal history to look back at and that helps shape his present perspective. Not everyone has this experiential background, nor do many bother to research the past for guidance in a moment of present and personal political crisis. Given this situation it maybe a better approach to consider a few questions that might help resolve the voting dilemma.

1. Is our choice between a candidate motivated by ideology and one motivated by political pragmatism?

A. For instance, when George W. Bush, Jr. was elected, the nation got a president motivated by a mixture of aggressive ideologies. He was/is a Christian fundamentalist, a "free market" deregulator, a neo-con warmonger, and a government minimalist. These orientations often superceded pragmatic politics and led Bush, Jr. to resist compromise. You could put a million people on the mall in Washington, D.C. to shout their disagreement with his policies and he would just dismiss them as a "focus group." Were his Democratic political opponents similar? Or were they more pragmatic politicians open to influence and pressure from various constituencies, including progressives? How do Romney and Obama compare in this regard?

2. What is the probability of a candidate taking the country into another war?

A. For instance, presidents such as Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush Jr. were quite willing to lie through their teeth in order to involve the country in foreign wars of dubious legitimacy. Lyndon Johnson made his misleading Tonkin Gulf speech to Congress which led to the Resolution that expanded the U.S. presence in South Vietnam. Reagan was constantly at war, directly or indirectly, in Central America, the Carribean and the Middle East and most Americans did not even know it until 241 U.S. marines died in Beirut and the Iran-Contra Affair broke in the press.

Bush Jr. and his advisers, of course, manufactured the "intelligence" which "justified" the invasion of Iraq.

B. Barack Obama ended American occupation of Iraq only to shift resources to Afghanistan. He has set a deadline for withdrawal from the Afghan morass even as he escalates the use of drone warfare. While pushing damaging sanctions against Iran, he has so far resisted pressure to attack that country or openly support Israeli ambitions to do so.

C. Romney has pledged to follow the lead of Israel when it comes to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and there is no doubt that Israeli leaders dream of fighting Iran with American support. Also, there is the fact that Romney's foreign policy advisers are some of the same neo-conservatives who served George W.

So, given a choice between Romney and Obama, which one is more likely to attack Iran? Remember, the question addresses probabilities. Either candidate, if elected, may or may not do so, but which one appears more likely to go to war?

3. What is the probability of either candidate taking seriously issues of social justice?

A. Again, there is no guarantee either way, but is one of the candidates apparently more inclined to support such issues? Here, statements on record favor Obama when it comes to women's concerns, to the poor, to the healthcare crisis, to gay rights, and the like.

B. Which one will protect civil liberties? Probably neither will.

Defining the Act of Voting

The list of questions given above is far from complete. For instance, an important consideration is whether such a list should include the perceived personal consequences of giving or withholding support? Do I commit some sort of moral breech if I vote for someone I have come to disrespect? Well, it depends on how you see the very act of casting a vote. Is it an act that refers to you as an individual, or to you as a member of a community?

If it is the former, it is your self-image that is at stake. You have to take a stand and live with yourself thereafter. If it is the latter, it is your concern for the fate of the community that is primary. That orientation may lead you away from thinking in terms of moral positions. Instead, it may lead you to accept the need for compromise. Either way you act, you run the real risk of dissatisfaction. Like Sam Brown, you might live to regret a decision that felt right at the time. Or, you might vote for the candidate you believe will do the least harm to your community, and have to live with a nagging sense of cognitive dissonance.

Conclusion

This analysis has not been written to tell anyone what to do. Instead, it is an effort to clarify a real life issue that simply does not have an easy answer. As of yet, I am not sure what I will do. However, it has crossed my mind that, if I do decide to vote for President Obama, I will enter the polling station with a clothespin on my nose.

Post Script: Richard John Stapleton, in a short piece entitled "Voting: Duty, Privilege or Right?" discusses growing support for a "Voters' Rights Amendment (USVRA) to the Constitution that [among other things] deprives corporations of constitutional rights and denies the equation of campaign donations and free speech." More details are available at www.usvra.us.