MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 1 year 1 week ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 week ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
Hits of the Day
- William K. Wolfrum (117)
- Bruce Levine (86)
- artappraiser (70)
- PeraclesPlease (69)
- artappraiser (63)
The Extraordinary Pierre Omidyar
By tmccarthy0 on Sun, 11/17/2013 - 6:19pm |I love reading Aames & Levine, they do some great stuff. From the article:
Where is the proof that he’s a "civic-minded" billionaire, a "different" billionaire, an "idealistic" billionaire who’s in it for ideals and not for profit? How is Omidyar any different from any other billionaire—when he is funding the same programs and pushing the same vision for the world backed by the Kochs, Soros, Gates, and every other neoliberal billionaire?
URL:
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/extraordinary-pierre-omidyar/3b890ddead2435b3ca12518371c2a98dc50bf836/
- Add new comment
- 2454 reads
Comments
What a sad bitchy article. Yes, agreed, there are some problems with microloans. And there are upsides. It's a vast social experiment and undoubtedly the learning curve needs to be acted on with regulations, and the failures / predatory practices culled to leave the more positive effects.
That said, lumping Soros in with Koch? Like Soros' assistance in Eastern Europe after the wall fell was just about making money, at a time when the US government was cutting back to find its peace dividend?
Look at all the dismissive "quotes" in the article - assassination through insunuation. Chomsky just wrote a piece re: this practice in the NY Times, like Iran's "right" to develop a nuclear power program. Like the astonishing "which earned a cool $5 million profit" re: a fund and an IPO - like these well-connected people couldn't make more money manipulating markets than messing around for years with Indian credit for the poor?
Then the absurdity that the selfish US taxpayer won't fund schools properly, so Omidyar is evil for "strangling" the system by setting up a micro-payment site for teachers. Naughty boy he is.
And then wow, Omidyar's abusing kids in Africa by making them pay $5 a month for school - "It should be free!!!!" Right, and they should have clean water and a healthy environment and what not - but they don't. So where to go from that idealistic stance?
The author may have some valid points, but they're buried in a heap of shitty attitude.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 12:53am
There are upsides to 1042% annual rate Payday Loans too. Particularly for whoever is collecting the interest.
The AP article says SKS whistleblowers have been targeted for retaliation by the company. Doubt Greenwald will be given that assignment to investigate.
This guy's operation sounds like a payday loan plan for the world's poorest, complete with US-scammer grade enforcers/collectors to harass debtors.
by NCD on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 2:35pm
It is NCD, of course, but everyone who loves Greenwald will let this slide. But as Levine and Ames say, there are no Billionaires with only the best intentions. Had this just been an article about Bill Gates most folks would be like, OMG Bill Gates is so evil, but since Omidyar has hooked up with the Great Grifter, he can do no wrong. Hypocrisy is a dish best served cold. Greenwald could care less of the PayDay loan scandal, because dronez.
by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 3:09pm
Of course that's true, just as some liberals will defend Assange even when he's accused of rape, when usually they bend the opposite way. But that slam cuts both ways. Greenwald, especially after Snowden, is an extremely controversial figure. Those who hate them will latch onto any article, no matter how slanted or obviously biased, as proof of their notorious bent.
I try not to comment on any issue until I've read at least a half dozen articles on the subject. Since I only recall one other article on microfinance that I've read in the last year I can't comment on this article. I also make sure I've read more than one side on an issue. That's one reason I spend time each day reading Real
ly republicanClear Politics.by ocean-kat on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 3:48pm
I understand you bigger point but:
Of course many liberals defend Assange' actions with Wikileaks but effectively zero of those who do defend rape by him, and they have never done so, anymore than they do by anyone else.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 4:06pm
I haven't seen you or anyone here defending Assange on the accusation of rape and I did say "some" not all. But I've seen many articles claiming he's innocent, its all a lie to discredit his work with Wikileaks, and even that the women were CIA plants. He may or may not be innocent, we won't know until or unless there's an actual trial. But some of the defense of him on this accusation sound more like conspiracy theories than objective journalism. Surely you must have come across some of those articles.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 4:33pm
Yes, of course I did see the suggestion that he might have been set up. Still, even among those who suggested that to be the case or at least strong possibility, I think virtually all except the obvious idiots agreed that he should go back to Sweden and face the charges, but that he was justified in not doing so if he couldn't be assured that he would not be extradited to the U.S.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 4:42pm
I can't quite fathom why they couldnt interrogate him in the 6 weeks following the accusations, and sorry, a not-US standard "rape" charge for not wearing a condom and/or condom breaking while 2 women compare notes get outraged that their rockstar spent the night with someone else... no, i dont think he should go back and face tje charges. If it had been Jimmy Page they would have woken up to cod between their legs. What's established? The 1st let him stay at her house while away, but returned early and had sex wi him - and then claims he broke his condom on purpose - loony or what. Maybe the 2nd had some point where there was no condom for their 2nd fuck - she says he refused. But both women bragged by sms about their conquest, no mention of rape - not until they found out the other had slept with him too. so no, forget it -too bizarre for a court case, drop it. Makes sweden look stupid.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 5:52pm
It was so bizarre Sweden did drop it at first.
The points you bring up and more were the reasons it was originally decided by the Swedish authorities not to charge him in the first place. Then, being free to travel he went to England and then suddenly someone in Sweden who had to stretch their jurisdiction and stretch Swedish law beyond its normal reach and intent, decided, for whatever reason that getting him back was worth an international incident which, like you said, made Sweden look stupid and made their true intent subject to suspicions.
Still, and again emphasizing that only if he was given assurance that he wouldn't be extradited, I believe he should have returned and faced those charges and I think that was the commonly held, or at least the commonly expressed, opinion of almost all who supported his Wikileaks actions.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 7:30pm
Real
ly republicanClear Politics... haha nice.I will supply you with a few links. But there is plenty of information out there available to you as well.
The pitfalls of MicroLending
Woman and Microcredit in Rural Bangledesh.
Microfinance Misses its Mark
by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 4:52pm
I'm sure there's plenty of information about microfinance. I just haven't had time to read much about it. I only said this to make it clear I wasn't criticizing or endorsing the article. Sharing links is always nice but getting some links wasn't the point of my comment. I can do an internet search.
What drew me in to comment and the point I was making is that you're slamming Greenwald lovers selective vision while I see just as many Greenwald haters with their own form of selective vision.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 11/19/2013 - 12:20am
Of course there are programmes that work. I am a believer in the UN Global Microlending programme, the funders aka underwriters are well known, the IMF, World Bank and UN Development programme. The reason I trust these types organizations over the great billionaire savior is that these organizations go through constant reassessment, they produce research, they go through constant critiques and must respond to committee that might have vigorous oversight.
I don't trust these great billionaires who will show us the light, lead us to the path of truth, because their money sets us free?? But it doesn't.
Let's take Bill Gates for example, I love his software and his company, I admire his philanthropy, but I vehemently oppose and object to his funding of charter school initiatives around the country, bad mouthing teachers, public school and teachers unions, and the only reason he gets a say in anything is because he has money. He certainly has no expertise in pedagogy, curriculum, or the real problems that face our public schools that has much more to do with income inequality than simply having lousy teachers protected by unions. He can throw his uneducated weight around, because he has dollars and his own deep belief, not backed up by actual evidence. I suspect Mr. Omidyar is any different than Bill Gates or even the Koch's. They have their own agenda's but there is no rigorous critique, no constant reassessment required because he, not unlike Mr. Gates is accountable only to himself.
Most of the good work done on micro-lending is only located in your library, or if by change you have access to JSTOR online.
by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 11/19/2013 - 10:51pm
Beggars can't be choosers, eh? Dont look a gift billionaire in the mouth. Sure, in an ideal world the UN might have a trillion dollar budget. In the meantime maybe we can just regulate the non-UN portion a tiny bit better rather than waiting for paradise on earth. Microlending collapsed and per capita consumption in Andhra pradesh decreased by 20% since the scandal. the non-profit sector didnt step in to pick up the slack. them's the breaks. for the little people. folks in america can be a bit more idealistic - the day to day realities dont impose on the vision. If bill gates is 70% right, it's better than doing nothing.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 11/20/2013 - 1:46pm
NCD, I'm curious. Is there a primary news source you trust to usually get the facts right and to be fair in their reporting? Are they enough? And, do you think there is a reasonable chance that the the new news venture will be of value?
Edit to add, Do you wish he would just save his money and not even finance this venture?
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 3:20pm
I said before I primarily look at reported facts. Like body counts. Nobody should die over a 'micro' loan from some billionaires latest scheme to make money.
According to AP linked at the link, the micro-loan deals in India resulted in a number of people driven to suicide because they couldn't repay the loans. Also, employees of the loan company were disciplined for complaining of SOP at the company.
I'm interested why you and PP seem to think everything Greenwald or his associates do is an irreproachable undertaking for which the only goal is delivering truth to 'save' us.
by NCD on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 4:43pm
How's that working out over the long term? Were you relying on reported facts all the way through Bush's term?
Never mind, you didn't bother to answer my questions [maybe it was a combination of just couldn't and just wouldn't] so I probably shouldn't bother answering yours with snark. Strike it from the record.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 5:01pm
What a strange accusation to put on me. I havent even commented on this latest media venture. who are Greenwald's 'associates' i'm championing? And where tje hell did i say greenwald is irreproachable?
People die in misery in india ebery day - if your only objection to something is someone died without any perspective, it's completely frivolous- of course rights should be protected -but they arent. How many of the same people would get a loan frm a tjug on the corner if SKS werent tjere? What was the practice in 1985? How many have been helped, how many hurt? How can the systm be improved for less (not 0) abuse?
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 6:02pm
From what I see, the microfinance charges are typically around 18-33% (SKS' are listed at 25%). Of course there are lots of loan sharks around willing to loan at higher rates for the desperate, and some people who get microfinance loans get other higher interest loans.
Yes, there's a lot of malpractice in a new, widespread and poorly regulated industry. Then again, the Fed handed out $2 trillion of our money to US approved loan sharks, swindlers and dealers in toxic assets, and we just said "thank you sir, may I have another".
So what's the balance in trying to regulate an industry like this focused largely on giving some people a chance? Hand out money? Tell them no loans/go get a regular job? How much disaster vs. success is acceptable?
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 3:35pm
You don't approve a corporate culture that loans money to the poor, and then hires collectors who drive debtors to suicide.
by NCD on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 4:46pm
Is the 'corporate culture' worse than the predator individuals & gangs doing the same thing since forever in India and elsewhere? Put in 'corporate' to make it more scary?
Workers are abused & driven to suicide at Apple's Foxconn and Jabil (a $17 billion US company) factories - does that mean we won't buy mobile phones, or that we'll criticize Jobs & Cook's iTV & iPad cloud content plans based on worker treatment?
The criticisms of microfinance focus on one horrific story of a woman setting herself on fire in 2010 - what's changed in the last 3 years, or will we keep trotting out the same story from 2010? There are people researching the causes, issues & solutions - why not quote them? Then, there were 14,000 suicides in Andhra Pradesh in the first 9 months of 2010 - several hundred of them seem from microfinance, much larger portion seems to be government pressure on the farming sector.
What's the background? Farmer suicides in Andhra Pradesh are so common they get their own Wiki page - but these were common before microfinance, and increased after the 2010 decline of microfinance. These were the biggest but not only targets of the malfeasance.
While it's pretty obvious the microfinance industry needed to be regulated better with some practical reforms, is the subsequent decline of the industry helpful?
Bravo, so we kill the microfinance industry while ignoring the effects on the poor. One aspect of microfinance I'd read about earlier was the abuse by men in using loans to women to essentially enslave them, so the promising buying of a sewing machine might be 1 man's personal sweat shop. Anyway, it's India, so huge and complicated and unpleasant. What this has to do with Omidyar's media startup, I don't know.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 11/19/2013 - 3:34am