Racist Regulators

Any effort by criminals to unlawfully exploit the current tenuous situation by way of theft or exploitation should be met with tolerance and understanding. The thief's 'different, but equally valid' sense of right and wrong should be taught in school as an alternative view on the parochial, Western concept of ownership rights, and celebrated by academics as a 'Philosophy of Peace'. If, however, the act is so heinous as to be indefensible even by the academics, the family background of the thief should be vigorously investigated until evidence of parental abuse or neglect can be uncovered, thereby justifying any aberrant, destructive behavior later in life.

?

Anybody?

?

agreed malraux -- i was considering reporting this as an abuse -- a complete waste and disregard of our time and intellect. We are all dumber for having read it. Perhaps the name should be changes to Someonewhoknowshowtowasteourtime... or someonewhoknowshowtoloveonesownvoice...

Oh get off your sanctimonious high horse, Manhattanfox. If you're a liberal who agrees with left-wing radicalism, you're free to disagree or ignore this and move on. As a conservative, I too am free to express my displeasure with inane policies any way I see fit. And a little attempt at levity in these tense times is cathartic. But again, if you don't like it, either express your own opinion, or, if it's beneath you to do so, ignore it and move on.

You guys do know that the current CEO of Citi Group, Vikram Panidit, is an immigrant from India? He is not white. Seriously, you are going off the deep end:

http://www.citigroup.com/citi/corporategovernance/profiles/pandit/index.htm

With Obama the probable next president and Rangel the chairman of the banking committee I would say race is off the table.

And what is wrong with Barney Frank as the chairman of the committee? He is gay. Is that not good enough? And the president has no impact on who is chairman of a committee.

And that's a very good thing, Alpine. Like any other non-racist, I couldn't care less what color/religion/gender/nationality etc. anyone in any position is as long as they were hired because of their credentials, not their creed. Citi obviously does not employ any affirmative action policy when determining its CEO - if an Indian was selected, it means he was the most qualified candidate, and kudos to him.

And the discrepancy between how CEOs are hired and other, lower-level positions are filled are precisely the point. Government, the private sector, and universities alike institute all kinds of inane affirmative action regulations - and sometimes even quotas - to ensure that the work/school place is 'diverse', even if it means, that, in certain instances, more qualified candidates from an 'over-represented' group are passed over in favor of members of 'under-represented' groups. But when it comes to positions of the highest prominence, no one argues that the CEO of Citi MUST be Indian just because the vast majority of others are white, or that the President of the US must be Barack Obama because all of his predecessors were middle-aged white men. Similarly, no one is arguing that Paulson and Bernanke must be joined by representatives of other ethnic minorities in the US so that we can achieve the most multi-ethnic and racially diverse approach to solving the credit crisis. What's good for the goose is good for the gander: if positions at the top are expected to be filled by those who rise and fall on the basis of their talents, rather than their skin color, the same should be true at every level of employment in society.