Yes, you really should. It was an eye opener to me as a guy who wants to do well in business. I'm not comparing Lay to anyone. I have no idea who Burkle is or anybody else.

I'm just telling you Ken Lay was not an actively bad person (a little vain, a little religious-y for my taste). He could have helped stop the mess, or perhaps better stated, he could have exhibited more effort in trying to stop it, but Andrew Fastow, my god, that guy was take your breath away abhorrent, and I think to some extent you just have to trust your CFO.

OK.

I don't often read business books - is it user-friendly for those of us who don't watch Jim Cramer or read the WSJ daily?

Word is, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin tops McCain's VP list. Dunno how much she'd be up to the campaign trail since she just had a baby.

jeff2sf wrote:

dajafi wrote:Maybe I'm one of those stick-in-the-mud Puritans, but I just don't think it's cool for a billionaire in his mid-50s to be screwing girls who can't legally drink in this country. Or seemly for a former President to be hanging out with a guy like that.

Is it illegal? No. Is it my business? No. But it is my opinion.

edit: I would agree that Ken Lay, a guy who through either malice or neglect stole the savings of thousands of workers, is far, far worse. Burkle is deeply icky; what Lay did is abhorrent. It's a little bit like when that Louis Black show compared Tila Tequila to Kim Jong Il.

What did Ken Lay do that was abhorrent? Andrew Fastow is a crook and a bad person. Jeff Skilling is a more gray area, probably sleazy investment banker. Ken Lay? A guy who maybe should have had his hand on the wheel a bit more, but not a guy who actively participated in harming shareholders. Have you read Smartest Guys in the Room?

I didn't read it, but saw the documentary. I get your point--you're saying that Lay's sins of omission weren't as bad as Fastow and Skilling's sins of commission. Not being a theologian, I don't feel up to going deep into that argument--but I do believe that ultimately the leader of an organization has to take responsibility for what happens on his watch.

BuddyGroom wrote:

dajafi wrote:Maybe I'm one of those stick-in-the-mud Puritans, but I just don't think it's cool for a billionaire in his mid-50s to be screwing girls who can't legally drink in this country. Or seemly for a former President to be hanging out with a guy like that.

Is it illegal? No. Is it my business? No. But it is my opinion.

edit: I would agree that Ken Lay, a guy who through either malice or neglect stole the savings of thousands of workers, is far, far worse. Burkle is deeply icky; what Lay did is abhorrent. It's a little bit like when that Louis Black show compared Tila Tequila to Kim Jong Il.

Yeah, it's a bit unseemly. Honestly, if I were in Burkle's shoes (including the part about being unmarried), I'd probably indulge to some degree. I doubt many of those comely 19-year-old are victims, much less wide-eyed virgins. They may not be legal to drink, but they are legal to consent to sex.

I'm not arguing otherwise. And maybe Burkle is a high-minded guy in some respects--as Clinton is through the work of his Global Initiative. (I think if Purdum had been more interested in an even-handed assessment, he might have devoted a few more words to the interesting point about how the CGI addresses areas where Clinton might feel he didn't do as much during his presidency as he could have or should have.) That he's a supermarket magnate who evidently doesn't detest unions is interesting.

But if this sexagenarian rat pack stuff somewhat bugs me, a fairly tolerant godless urbanite, I think it's pretty safe to say it wouldn't have played well for Hillary's presidential hopes.

BuddyGroom wrote:OK.

I don't often read business books - is it user-friendly for those of us who don't watch Jim Cramer or read the WSJ daily?

It's almost a crime novel. It is not a WSJ book. It's awesome and I don't think the documentary covers it. Having a different frame of reference I can't definitively say whether you will or won't get lost sometimes, but I doubt it. Where you do, you can just skip ahead, as most of the crimes done were of the hand in cookie jar variety.

If dajafi wants to blame Lay, go ahead, and I'm not saying he shouldn't have been fired/disgraced/PERHAPS sent to jail (I'm less convinced on the last part). What I am saying is that it wasn't abhorrent, and there but for the grace of god goes a lot of people.

OK jeff, I'll check out the book.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:There will be more, and it will get uglier (clue: Obama's brother might be a B-I-G problem. If you don't know what I'm referring to, you eventually will). If you thought it was bad during the primaries, just wait.

You mean that he has a brother in China?

Cool! We get to see the national version of Milton Street???!?!?!?!

Politico's Crypt Blog: Trade Critics On The Offensive

By Victoria McGrane

Democratic trade critics from both parties today said they have a firm commitment from the now-presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama that he’ll reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement if he wins in November.

“I think that’s a pretty good sign that he’ll oppose Colombia, that he’s not going to push Colombia,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), referring to a controversial trade agreement between the United States and that country that is currently stalled.

I have no idea what Democratic trade critics from both parties means, but more evidence that Obama is anti-free trade.

philliesphhan wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:There will be more, and it will get uglier (clue: Obama's brother might be a B-I-G problem. If you don't know what I'm referring to, you eventually will). If you thought it was bad during the primaries, just wait.

You mean that he has a brother in China?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/29cohen.html

jerseyhoya wrote:

Politico's Crypt Blog: Trade Critics On The Offensive

By Victoria McGrane

Democratic trade critics from both parties today said they have a firm commitment from the now-presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama that he’ll reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement if he wins in November.

“I think that’s a pretty good sign that he’ll oppose Colombia, that he’s not going to push Colombia,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), referring to a controversial trade agreement between the United States and that country that is currently stalled.

I have no idea what Democratic trade critics from both parties means, but more evidence that Obama is anti-free trade.

jesus, you never quit with this crap. That quote hails from an aptly titled department - in fact, 'cryptic' is a generous description of a hash of insinuation, of which neither friend nor foe can make anything like sense.

And you tidily parse it as "more evidence that Obama is anti-free trade".

Damn, boy, you aren't paid to come on HERE and spout this kind of twaddle, are you? Save it for your clients, if you really have any.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Politico's Crypt Blog: Trade Critics On The Offensive

By Victoria McGrane

Democratic trade critics from both parties today said they have a firm commitment from the now-presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama that he’ll reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement if he wins in November.

“I think that’s a pretty good sign that he’ll oppose Colombia, that he’s not going to push Colombia,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), referring to a controversial trade agreement between the United States and that country that is currently stalled.

I have no idea what Democratic trade critics from both parties means, but more evidence that Obama is anti-free trade.

Well sure, if you equate "not entirely satisfied with NAFTA as-is" to "anti-free trade."

This is another issue where Obama's diverging from the Clinton/Bush mode of politics-as-soundbite will be interesting to follow. His position as I understand it is that he's for free trade that incorporates worker and environmental safeguards--deals that produce less harsh outcomes for the "losers" than unadulterated free trade.

This is probably a winning political position, particularly in the states like PA and OH and MI that he badly needs. I also think it's probably good policy, though admittedly the proof will come only when he gets into actual negotiations with the other parties to the deal.

dajafi wrote:Well sure, if you equate "not entirely satisfied with NAFTA as-is" to "anti-free trade."

I just want it on the record that I replied just as dajafi did, but used different words 'n stuff.

There are people in power who would have me silenced.... 8)

Bob Loblaw wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:There will be more, and it will get uglier (clue: Obama's brother might be a B-I-G problem. If you don't know what I'm referring to, you eventually will). If you thought it was bad during the primaries, just wait.

You mean that he has a brother in China?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/29cohen.html

Not that one. Abongo.

I know, I know. What relevence is one's siblings (see: Roger and Billy) et al. But who says relevence has anything to do with political fodder?

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Bob Loblaw wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:There will be more, and it will get uglier (clue: Obama's brother might be a B-I-G problem. If you don't know what I'm referring to, you eventually will). If you thought it was bad during the primaries, just wait.

You mean that he has a brother in China?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/29cohen.html

Not that one. Abongo.

Oooh--it even sounds Scary and Different!

PiP, know anything about Hillary's brothers?

dajafi wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Bob Loblaw wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:There will be more, and it will get uglier (clue: Obama's brother might be a B-I-G problem. If you don't know what I'm referring to, you eventually will). If you thought it was bad during the primaries, just wait.

You mean that he has a brother in China?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/29cohen.html

Not that one. Abongo.

Oooh--it even sounds Scary and Different!

PiP, know anything about Hillary's brothers?

The pardon stuff? Doesn't matter much now since she's not the nominee, but I'm sure it would have been fodder if she were. That's the game of election politics.

Abongo... doesn't sound scary to me, maybe "percussive"

Not much about Abongo on the internets, except from some righty sites and blogs. He was on Wikipedia, but it got deleted.

Like I said, what relevence is one's siblings? In almost all cases, little or none. But since when has relevence (and in some cases, truth) mattered in the game of election politics? All I'm saying is, I wouldn't be surprised if it somehow sprung up as an "issue" in the coming weeks/months, an "issue" introduced by the watercarriers. An "issue", be it true or not, relevent or not, that can have a negative impact of some degree. (notice I have "issue" in quotes)

Maybe I'm just looking at the election more from a "strategist" POV and not like the average supporter of one candidate or another, so such things set off a little "uh oh" alarm.

BARACK OBAMA

BARACK OBAMA

BARACK OBAMA

BARACK OBAMA

BARACK OBAMA

btw i lol'ed my self to sleep last night when I saw on one of those issues sites that mccain wants to build a 700 mile long fence along the u.s. mexican border.

why dont we just kick ourselves in the balls throw a few billon dollars in the gulf and give a few million illegal immigrants jobs and just save the time.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Politico's Crypt Blog: Trade Critics On The Offensive

By Victoria McGrane

Democratic trade critics from both parties today said they have a firm commitment from the now-presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama that he’ll reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement if he wins in November.

“I think that’s a pretty good sign that he’ll oppose Colombia, that he’s not going to push Colombia,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), referring to a controversial trade agreement between the United States and that country that is currently stalled.

I have no idea what Democratic trade critics from both parties means, but more evidence that Obama is anti-free trade.

Well sure, if you equate "not entirely satisfied with NAFTA as-is" to "anti-free trade."

This is another issue where Obama's diverging from the Clinton/Bush mode of politics-as-soundbite will be interesting to follow. His position as I understand it is that he's for free trade that incorporates worker and environmental safeguards--deals that produce less harsh outcomes for the "losers" than unadulterated free trade.

This is probably a winning political position, particularly in the states like PA and OH and MI that he badly needs. I also think it's probably good policy, though admittedly the proof will come only when he gets into actual negotiations with the other parties to the deal.

Wanting to renegotiate NAFTA, voting against CAFTA, opposing the South Korean FTA, and opposing the Colombian FTA means I equate him with being anti-free trade. He's not Sherrod Brown by any stretch of the imagination, but he's going to be the most protectionist president in a while.

It's not really an interesting divergence from the Clinton/Bush mode of politics-as-soundbite. Most people don't support free trade. It's a huge winner politically for him to hit these deals. Obama has tossed plenty of soundbites out there over the course of the campaign bashing NAFTA. The really interesting thing would be if he went out of his way to explain to lower income voters how free trade benefits them by increasing their purchasing power and giving them a wider array of choices.

Maybe the labor and environmental protections are a good thing, and ought to be included in the agreements (I'm pretty sure they are in the Colombia deal), but a lot of the time they seem like an excuse by labor to oppose the deals. I guess I'd say I'm hoping Obama will take a balanced approach to talking about trade on the campaign trail, talking up all the good that comes with it, but I would be surprised if he does so.

Clinton to endorse Obama Saturday

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/politics/05dems.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin