@hamburgerhotdog: You also assume that Goldman execs do not donate to charity but provide no backup on that assumption. Kinda crummy reporting here, kid.
They screwed up by even announcing it as part of the bonus discussion. Certain companies "encourage" senior employees to support specific charities - ever heard of United Way? - but this just makes them look Machiavellian, ham-handed, and greedy.
The Disneyfication of Times Square actually has a legit Disney root... they purchased, shut down, and cleaned up several grindhouse theaters in the early 90's along 42nd street. I recall walking through there right after it began... the boarded up theaters were painted bright, cheery colors.
This is a no-win situation, PR-wise. Just give the money away. Don't issue a press release, put your middle fingers up, and try to be less successful in a society constructed out of unadulterated envy.
Another ignorant rookie form Gawker. Call them what you want, but saying they're not known for philanthropy is just saying that YOU haven't bothered to investigate such. Blogger equals reporter? Not in this case.
Even if you believe Goldman is a "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money", you have to admit that $2.2B-3.3B going to charity is an unequivocally good thing, publicity stunt or not. But, because Goldman is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, you can be certain they have a team of quants trying to model the cost vs. benefit of any such donation. So, I wouldn't hold my breath.
@atlasfugged: How many of the execs and their shellacked wives are going to be doing the white boy frug at parties at the Met and the Whitney this Christmas?
Not that the Met and the Whitney should turn down the cash on principle. But the very thought of those aging frat-tards shambling around a place that they throw money at, yet don't care about and can't possibly understand makes me want to put Krazy Glue on the toilet seats.
Would someone please explain why I need a Kindle or other book reader when my mini notebook (or the one I plan on buying soon)will eventually have this app?
@SarahHeartburn: Because the Kindle has a battery life of a few days whereas your netbook and the upcoming Apple Tablet might last for a few hours. Because reading text on the e-ink screen is less taxing on your eyes than reading it on LCD screen. Because the kindle won't heat up too much when used for a long time.
@SarahHeartburn: I was skeptical for this reason until my "friend" convinced me to try hers. Now I am obsessed with getting a Kindle, for the reasons Luddite lists, and more. The user experience is very book-like, which puts my brain in a reading zone, as opposed to a "watching" zone, if that makes any sense.
@SarahHeartburn: I also tried the Kindle app on my iPhone and nearly went crazy trying to use it. OK for short bursts, but not for reading an entire book.
@CaptainMaharet: Of course. But a Kindle is areal handy substitute for schlepping an 800-page hardcover. And with a Kindle, if I finish one book while I'm out and about, there are plenty more immediately available.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
http://www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2007/12/17/Goldman-Sachs-Foundations/
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
Not that the Met and the Whitney should turn down the cash on principle. But the very thought of those aging frat-tards shambling around a place that they throw money at, yet don't care about and can't possibly understand makes me want to put Krazy Glue on the toilet seats.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
09/18/09
09/18/09
09/18/09