Just as I predicted, Bill De Blasio, NYC's newly elected mayor, the same guy who is branded a Socialist, Coummunist and "Super Progressive" by Conservatives, is already selling out.
First he installs Rudy Giuliani's top cop, Bill Bratton, as police commissioner. So, don't expect any change in NYPD's heavy handed and highly racist approach to policing.
And guess who he just appointed as the new Deputy Mayor? Yep...a Goldman Sachs executive.
If anyone other than the 1% thinks that the system works for them this should be the final, last, proof they need that it absolutely does not. It's a sham. These guys will say anything, do anything, to get elected. Then, once they're in, that's it, it's the status quo or worse.
The only reason I can think of is that these guys really do believe that Wall Street makes all of us richer.
ReplyDeleteEither that or these guys are all evil, but I hate to go through life with that kind of cynicism.
We can't help but be cynical. This is done to us over and over and over.
ReplyDeleteThis is completely explicable by analytic philosophy, psychology, and sociology and anthropology in terms of class structure and power structure. There is no "objective world," only worldviews. In that sense, we live in worlds of our own making. Of course, there is lots of overlap, but at the edges things don't always match up. Lloyd Blankfein really does believe that he (Goldman) is doing God's work. He wasn't just saying that. As far as that crowd goes, they really think TINA, or at least any viable alternative.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you read the article about her before you jump to any conclusions just because she worked at Goldman Sachs.
ReplyDeleteThe (not so) funny thing is, it's Obama redux, when O appointed Rahm Emmanuel, Tim Geithner, and Larry Summers right out of the box. Progressives that thought O was one of them were gobsmacked. Here's De Blasio doing it all over again.
ReplyDeletePoint well taken, RSG.
ReplyDeleteBut in my view appointing anyone from GS was the wrong foot to get started on. It's the messaging and the details get lost in the lede.
De Blasio would be well advised to steer clear of association with Wall Street.
Same can be said of his pick to replace Kelly. Even though the person is well qualified and there are reasons to give for appointing him, picking someone associated with Rudy was bad messaging. Again starting out on the wrong foot.
Unless one is trying to assure the top of the town that there won't be any tsunamis.
De Blasio is either tone deaf, or needs to switch his PR team. This is bad, bad messaging.
Just look a what happens in Democratic politics. when Democrats take the WH, they appoint Wall Streeters to Treasury and a Republican strong on defense to run DOD. Why? Messaging. We are very serious people who won't rock the ship.
If it looks like a socialist, or talks like a socialist, it probably isn't...
ReplyDelete"Why don't you read the article about her before you jump to any conclusions just because she worked at Goldman Sachs."
ReplyDeleteYeah, RSG, she negotiated funding for Citibike and is for taxing millionaires and billionaires $3.50 per day.
Wow. We should give her the benefit of the doubt!
I don't buy into solipsism and into esoteric postmodernist mumbo jumbo. Of course there is an objective world, independent of human perception.
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't mean human perception of this objective world is accurate.
So, it's perfectly possible for Lloyd Blankfein to genuinely believe he is doing God's work.
But _we_ beg to differ with him. And since it is _we_ who make this joint work, it is _our_ opinion that really matters.
Of course there is an objective world, independent of human perception.
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't mean human perception of this objective world is accurate.
We just don't know what it is. :)
That's what we have science for and as philosophers of science have noted, science is theory-laden as well as data selective and constructive. Then there is the interpretation of results. There are how many interpretations of QM?
Realism is a position that no one has stated rigorously in a compelling way. Humans tend to agree on the trivial and differ widely on the significant.
The logical difficulty is finding absolute criteria independent of POVs. POVs are defined by their norms and criteria. Different groups play by different rules and the winners get to impose their own rules.
Progressives always come under intense pressure to "reassure The Street" or "reassure Big Business" as soon as they are elected.
ReplyDeleteRemember that politicians can't really run anything because they don't really own anything. Goldman Sachs can effectively bankrupt the City Hall administration overnight, and mobilize either overwhelming support or overwhelming opposition to any political administration they choose. If De Blasio didn't know the score before he was elected, he does now.
Your response tells me you don't know the first thing about her except for she worked at Goldman Sachs...and due to your narrow mindedness thats all you'll ever see even though she might be the most qualified person for the job. Maybe she's doing it for the money, working for the mayor's office versus what she made at GS.
ReplyDeleteRemember that politicians can't really run anything because they don't really own anything.
ReplyDeleteThat's something that should be forgotten, not remembered. Utterly untrue in every respect, a joke, on a national level. Of course truer on a local level, but NYC is not South Succotash.
If the politicians didn't really run anything, it would not be necessary to corrupt them, and even more importantly to convince everyone, including them, of the imaginary independent power of a Goldman Sachs.
There is an argument that these people are all Satanists: http://crazyeddiethemotie.blogspot.com/2013/12/a-conversation-with-archdruid-about.html
ReplyDeleteAnd that's not as funny as it sounds.
@RSG
ReplyDeleteI don't have to know anything about her. The fact that she comes from Goldman is enough.
There are plenty of qualified people out there who would be great for a high level economic post in De Blasio's Administration.
He says he stands for things and greater equality happens to be one of them. Great. However, choosing someone from the most rapacious of Wall Street firms shows poor judgement or callousness toward the very people he promised "change" to. (There's that word again.)
People view Goldman as the embodiment of the plutocracy. It's a really bad choice, but more likely, it's another clue as to how he will govern, which will be not far off from the Bloomberg style. Maybe with a bit less of the "nanny state."
Nebs,
ReplyDeleteDid you write that or are you just linking to it?
(Stark cartoon there!)
rsp,
Just linked, though Crazy Eddie is a long time friend of mine. You'll note I'm one of his tags. Me and The Archdruid are...well, let's just say we're 'epistemological opponents'.
ReplyDeleteI also strongly recommend this blog: http://hipcrime.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteBTW "Hipcrime" is a phrase from John Brunner's very prescient novel "Stand on Zanzibar".
"That's what we have science for and as philosophers of science have noted, science is theory-laden as well as data selective and constructive. Then there is the interpretation of results. There are how many interpretations of QM?"
ReplyDeleteAll that may or may not be true. Frankly, neither I care nor does it matter. For it doesn't change anything: there is an objective reality outside of us.
So, anyone can perceive reality in their own way, but not all perceptions are equally valid.
And even if all perceptions were equally valid (which they are absolutely not) you put things very well in the last sentence:
"Different groups play by different rules and the winners get to impose their own rules".
My point precisely. That's the bottom line.
ReplyDeleteWell, that's Foucault. Politicization of knowledge.
That can't be Foucault: I said it, so it must be wrong.
ReplyDeleteThat can't be Foucault: I said it, so it must be wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhat Foucault actually meant is controversial so this is undecidable. What I mean is that Foucault emphasized the role of rules in discourse, but not logical rules like analytic philosophers or grammar like linguists. He was concerned with institutional rules and therefore power relationships.
What passes for common knowledge and expert opinion is transmitted by the dominant media that is also part of the power structure, and the arbiter of discourse is the rules determined by the institutional structure.
Whether Foucault would have said it that way or not, he can be interpreted that way.
Hey, Nebs, thanks for linking to that entry on my blog. Greer's entire thesis is "ha, ha, only serious." Also, I see that our host has already used the cartoon at the end of the entry for his most recent post. Glad to have that passed along. It is a great cartoon.
ReplyDelete"Crazy Eddie"
Blasio - chief jelly bean distributor... trickle treat down your feet let them have nothing to eat
ReplyDelete