#lemann

[tita-ferreira]

https://twitter.com/tatunotoco/status/1784302417032474908?s=19

[singledigitsalary]

[untouchvbles]

Pontiac Firebird Trans-AM WS6 at Waukesha Cars & Coffee (2024) - Meet 3 in Waukesha, WI.

[authorstalker]

My October & November Reads

A Life of One's Own: Nine Women Writers Begin Again, Joanna Biggs - One of my favorite reads of the year! A delicious blend of memoir and literary history, the author researches the personal and professional lives of women writers (including Toni Morrison, Virginia Woolf, Zora Neale Hurston, and George Eliot) as a way to cope with her decision to leave her husband. I learned so much and wanted to murder Ted Hughes. It's an excellent, gossipy good time.

I Meant It Once: Stories, Kate Doyle - I would rename this collection Stories for Sad Girls, which used to be my brand........but to be honest, at first I felt too ancient for all of the early-twenty-something emotions. A few stories in I adjusted, however, and then the reading experience became more like a journey to a time when the future was unknown and excitinggggg rather than ya know, constantly fearing that life's various, terrible inevitabilities are just around the corner.

Lives of the Saints, Nancy Lemann - A novella that made me laugh, cry, and consider booking a trip to New Orleans.

[hettykate]

"The music is nearly as sharp as the tip of Hetty’s fashionable shoe.." Michael Steinman 'JazzLives' USA. 

On a day for lovers filled with flowers, chocolates and love notes.. these songs, a little tongue-in-cheek, a little acerbic, are for the singletons, the spurned and the 'bah humbugs' among us. 

The EP Sessions. EP means 'extended play' and usually falls between the length of a single, and the length of a full album. The EP Sessions are an opportunity for me to record with musicians I admire, where we can all be relaxed, and we can do what we do best.. 'just play!' 

- - - - - - - 

Released February 14, 2023 

Hetty Kate (vocals)  Mark Fitzgibbon (piano)  Sam Lemann (guitar) (tracks 3 and 4)  Ben Hanlon (double bass) 

- - - - - - - 

Recorded in August 2022, in Australia  Engineer : Niko Schauble, Pughouse Studios, Thornbury  Mixing & Mastering : Niko Schauble 

Other releases include : Under Paris Skies (2019), Kissing Bug (2009), Dim All The Lights (2014), Gordon Webster meets Hetty Kate (2014) and many more.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Brazil's Richest Man Loses Billions as His M&A Machine Breaks Down

It wasn’t too long ago that Jorge Paulo Lemann was arguably the most respected—and feared—corporate baron on Earth. The Brazilian billionaire and his two longtime business partners were scooping up multinational giants at a frenetic clip and folding them into the vast empire they built from Rio de Janeiro.

In 2008 it was Anheuser-Busch InBev. In 2010, Burger King. Then came H.J. Heinz, Tim Hortons, Kraft Foods Group and, finally, in 2016, the biggest of them all: brewer SABMiller. With each new acquisition, Lemann, inspired by his idol, former General Electric Co. Chief Executive Officer Jack Welch, would order up deep cost cuts. Perks were eliminated, payrolls slashed, factories shuttered.

It was excruciating for rank-and-file employees but thrilling for Lemann’s financial backers, who pocketed windfall gains as the new, leaner companies churned out ever-bigger profits. The 3G model, as it was dubbed on Wall Street in honor of Lemann’s principal investment company, 3G Capital Inc., was so ruthlessly effective that it began to revolutionize thinking in C-suites across America. Even Warren Buffett, who invested in a couple of the deals Lemann struck, seemed mesmerized. “Jorge Paulo and his associates are extraordinary managers,” he gushed in 2013.

But then, just like that, it all went wrong for Lemann. In early 2017 he was rebuffed when he tried to acquire European conglomerate Unilever Plc for $143 billion and merge it with Kraft Heinz Co. This exposed a fundamental flaw: 3G’s obsessive focus on costs, rather than on expanding the business, meant it needed a never-ending pipeline of big targets that it could buy and squeeze savings from so it could keep boosting profits. Starved of fresh acquisitions, 3G faltered. The prices of the stocks of Kraft Heinz and Anheuser-Busch (which is technically outside of 3G) cratered, Lemann and his partners’ collective fortune shrank by $14 billion, and the vaunted 3G model had, for all intents and purposes, died.

So Lemann, now 83, already had a distinct lion-in-winter feel to him when Americanas SA, a Brazilian retail giant that he and his partners have been major shareholders for decades, collapsed into bankruptcy last month after a $3.8 billion hole was discovered in the company’s balance sheet.

Continue reading.

[nixieofthenorth]

She had a nostalgia for a life she had never lived.

Nancy Lemann

[dijidweeeb]

Mira Lemann

[xtruss]

The Next Targets in the Fight Against Affirmative Action

It won’t be admissions offices at selective schools but institutions and programs that use race as a plus factor in making decisions about who gets contracts, jobs, scholarships, and awards.

— By Nicholas Lemann | July 2, 2023

The U.S. Supreme Court building. It’s time to prepare for a long struggle that’s about much more than who gets into college.Photograph by Chip Somodevilla/Getty

Of the almost four thousand degree-granting colleges in the United States, only a very small portion are highly selective. These are the institutions that the Supreme Court’s decision striking down affirmative action in admissions will affect most directly. Surely all of them have been practicing affirmative action for years, and surely the Court’s decision comes as a surprise to none of them; it was clear after Donald Trump had appointed three Justices, and after the Court had decided to hear the cases challenging admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, where this was going. Colleges that have commented on the decision publicly have been disapproving. Most of them have stopped requiring that applicants submit standardized-test scores temporarily, but this exemption is likely to become permanent as a result of the Court’s decision, because, for half a century, test scores have been the primary evidence that people suing to get affirmative action abolished have used to support their claims that they have been victims of discrimination.

The selective schools have undoubtedly been planning their post-affirmative-action approach to admissions, which will include beefing up their staff so that they can make qualitative, rather than quantitative, choices, based on reading applicants’ folders. Many Black and Latino applicants will take solace in the lifeline Chief Justice John Roberts threw them in his majority opinion—referring to racial experiences in application essays will still be permissible. If there is a way to avoid devastating losses in their share of Black and Latino students, the selective colleges will find it. The vast majority of American college aspirants won’t be directly affected by the decision, because their prospective schools accept most of their applicants. For many of those students, the problem is not failure to be admitted but failure to graduate: more than a third of American college students don’t.

So why does this case elicit such intense passions on both sides, including a great deal of highly personal public feuding among the Justices in their opinions? To begin with, it taps into wildly different theories of American history. The conservative Justices’ opinions discern a golden thread (color blindness) running through the violence and tragedy of the past century and a half of racial law and policy: the Emancipation Proclamation; the post-Civil War Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution; Justice John Marshall Harlan’s lonely dissent in the Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson decision that upheld Jim Crow; the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (The Harvard and U.N.C. suits argue specifically that affirmative action violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.) Now, at last, in the view of the conservative Justices, we can restore the primacy of the golden thread.

In fact, each of these historical moments was at the time seen as entirely racial, not color-blind, and none wound up installing a post-racist system that we now can restore. The Emancipation Proclamation, consecrated in our newest national holiday, Juneteenth, specifically permitted the continuation of slavery in areas controlled by the Union. The Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, initially failed to pass a Confederate-free House of Representatives. After the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson, as Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out in their dissents, vetoed the first national civil-rights law, whose text might be read today as racially neutral, because he felt it discriminated in favor of Black people. The Southern states strongly opposed the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, precisely because they conferred civil and voting rights on Black people, and ratified them only in order to be readmitted to the Union. After less than a decade, the former Confederacy had effectively nullified both amendments through a coördinated campaign of violent terrorism that the federal government grew weary of contesting. Closer to our time, after the civil-rights movement finally got the federal government to pay attention to race again, Presidents John F. Kennedy, in 1961, and Lyndon Johnson, in 1965, signed executive orders mandating affirmative action by government contractors—even though, as the golden-thread theory has it, they were merely trying to create a color-blind society. They did this because the country, particularly in its upper socioeconomic reaches, was almost completely segregated, whatever anti-discrimination provisions were being put into law. And today the vast majority of Black Americans still haven’t experienced a society that feels color-blind to them.

Selective colleges didn’t require much prodding to adopt affirmative-action admissions policies during the later stages of the civil-rights era. They did so for a clear, specific reason: to become more racially integrated. These colleges are mainly venerable institutions that are used to pursuing a number of not exactly congruent principles at the same time. Their claims to wanting to make the world a better place are sincere; they also like being academically élite and want to stay that way. That was why, within roughly the same period, they adopted both affirmative action and standardized admission testing, whose results can’t be dispositive if affirmative action is going to work. From the colleges’ perspective, this mix of admissions policies has worked very well: in the course of decades, they have become more integrated and more élite—and, from their own self-centered perspective, much more in demand and more important in the life of the country. It was not always the case that Supreme Court Justices, of all races, were graduates of highly selective colleges and law schools, but it is now.

Justice Neil Gorsuch opened his concurring opinion with this sentence: “For many students, an acceptance letter from Harvard or the University of North Carolina is a ticket to a brighter future.” This indicates a profoundly different idea about the purpose of selective-college admissions from the colleges’ own idea: that it should be a way of parcelling out something valuable and scarce to those who most deserve it. It’s a difficult project, because the gradations among applicants are so fine and because colleges are selecting from among adolescents who live at home, with all the advantages and disadvantages that confers. This may explain why class-based affirmative action, which selective colleges already practice, seems to be less widely resented than race-based affirmative action. But let’s not lose sight of the history. Affirmative action was born during a moment of racial crisis, and its purpose was specifically to integrate the colleges that instituted it, not to find the perfect means to confer Gorsuch’s ticket on the most deserving.

Supreme Court Justices have themselves experienced the cognitive dissonance inherent in selective colleges’ simultaneous embrace of academic élitism and racial justice, probably more than they have experienced both sides of most issues that come before them. From the very beginning (DeFunis v. Odegaard, 1974), the Court has had a noticeably hard time making up its mind about affirmative action in admissions. It has never got anywhere near unanimity; instead, it has produced a long string of fine-grained rulings, usually decided by one-vote majorities and elaborately qualified by concurrences and dissents. Justice Roberts’s majority opinion, in the Harvard and U.N.C. cases, adroitly brought to the fore all the decades of limitations that were required to produce any majority decision at all in these cases. One of these was the failure, in the 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case, to get a fifth vote in favor of an endorsement of recompense for past wrongs as a justification for affirmative action. Another was Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s dictum in her majority opinion in the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger case that in twenty-five years “the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.” (In an interview with Evan Thomas, for his 2019 biography of her, O’Connor distanced herself from that deadline.) Legally, affirmative action was always precarious, even as it became widely institutionalized. Its precarity made it easy for the current Court to tip it over.

It’s striking, in looking back at the long period between Reconstruction and the civil-rights movement, how avoidant the country’s leadership—including most liberals—was of racial issues. Even Franklin Roosevelt rarely applied his great rhetorical gifts to that subject. It matters a lot who’s in the room when agendas are set and policies are made. One of the purposes of affirmative action, and one of its successes, has been to correct the composition of such rooms; this is why the racial makeup of the student body at a few, yet highly important, colleges can have a broad effect on millions of people. Roberts may have had a similar rationale in mind when, in a mysterious footnote to his majority opinion, he granted military academies, which produce leaders for a disproportionately Black force that is meant to exemplify American values to the world, an exemption from the Court’s ban on affirmative action in admissions.

Opponents of affirmative action have been filing lawsuits for a very long time. For them, this decision will represent anything but a satisfying end to the struggle. Instead, they will see it as an invitation from the Supreme Court—one to be accepted quickly, before the Court’s membership changes—to look for other places where the majority’s way of defining color blindness does not prevail. Harvard and U.N.C. expect to remain under intense scrutiny from conservatives, just as they were expecting this decision. But admissions offices at selective colleges are not the most likely next defendants; it’s any institution or program that uses race as a plus factor in making decisions about who gets contracts, jobs, scholarships, and awards, or whatever other benefits it can hand out. Any racial-justice initiative launched in the fast-fading moment of moral passion after the murder of George Floyd will make for an especially inviting target for conservative legal crusaders, as such initiatives have also been for Republican politicians. It’s time for the supporters of affirmative action to prepare for a long, tough struggle that has to be understood as being about much more than who gets into college. ♦

— Nicholas Lemann is a staff writer at The New Yorker and a Professor at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.

[hoyatype]

I was plagued by remorse, but my remorse seemed inspired by insignificant dumb things—things not really worthy of bona fide remorse. That didn’t make it any less painful or plague-worthy, as I was still riddled with disgrace on a minute-by-minute basis, so I decided to conduct a scientific study to analyze the cause(s). Then I could modify my behavior so as to behave in a way that would not cover me with dishonor. Remorse is akin to regret but more violent than regret. The overall atmosphere in my case seemed to derive from generic self-loathing. But that was too vague. Once I conducted the study, I would be able to identify more exactly the source of the trouble.

Meanwhile I went to Rigoletto at the neighborhood movie theater where they stream productions from the Royal Opera House in London��The comic and the tragic alternating, the ridiculous preceding the sublime.

The singing was celestial—angelic music of the spheres…I was ecstatic—to be moved by something, to feel, to think, and to remember.

nancy lemann, ‘diary of remorse’, in the paris review’s issue 241 (fall 2022)

[blahhk-riva-cemetery]

IN TOUCH by LP -№4 Aurora Addicts- at Shibuya JUMP

IN TOUCH by LP -№4 Aurora Addicts- at Shibuya JUMP

2023.3.18(Sat) Doors open @4pm Adm: \1,500/1Drink

-DJ- COUTA SUGAR-G 栽培 as Cybi るか RTB WAVY RICH SKYE

-BEAT LIVE- Lehmann Junkies

-LIVE- Tiggar as 大地 DEJI RAP MARUYAMA ケントマン 山田と田中 RUTTSU

about "IN TOUCH by LP" ローカルプレイヤがおくる新しい質感「In Touch」。 モダンでありながらコンサバティブな空間は、さまざまな用途で行きかうモールのデッキのように公共的で、自由な発想を生み出せます。

LOCAL PLAYA SOUND https://youtube.com/c/localplayajp

Shibuya JUMP 東京都渋谷区宇田川町10-1 B1 https://shibuyajump.com/

[portalnaynneto]

Márcia Conrado participa de encontro anual da Fundação Lemann

Márcia Conrado participa de encontro anual da Fundação Lemann

A prefeita Márcia Conrado participou nesta terça-feira (06) do Encontro Anual da Fundação Lemann, realizado na cidade de Sobral (CE), cujo tema escolhido esse ano foi “O Brasil com a potência da nossa gente”. Durante o encontro foram realizadas plenárias com lideranças, gestores públicos e especialistas a respeito do tema central do evento, além de salas temáticas e imersões em áreas como…

[untouchvbles]

Pontiac GTO at Waukesha Cars & Coffee (2024) - Meet 3 in Waukesha, WI.

[deadpresidents]

Among Joe Biden's afflictions and miseries, his wormwood and gall, there are the insults (about his diminished capacities), and then there are the compliments unpaid (about his achievements). We are exposed to more of the first, but it seems that to him the second are more painful. In his first interview after he withdrew as the Democratic Presidential nominee, Biden -- wounded, proud, self-pitying, defiant -- said, by way of defending his record, "No one thought we could get done, including some of my own people, what we got done. One of the problems is, we knew all the things we did were going to take a little time to work their way through. So now people are realizing, 'Oh, that highway. Oh, that...'" He trailed off for a moment and then recovered. "The biggest mistake we made, we didn't put up signs saying 'Joe Did It.'" He ended this with a bitter chuckle. Biden isn't wrong. Objectively, and improbably, he has passed more new domestic programs than any Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson -- maybe even since Franklin Roosevelt.

In the early weeks of 2021, very few people saw Biden as the obvious winner in the large field of potential candidates for the 2024 Democratic nomination. His victory over Donald Trump had not been overwhelming. The Democrats had lost seats in the House even while maintaining a narrow majority, and got to fifty votes in the Senate only after two runoff elections in Georgia broke their way. Then, with nothing close to a mandate, Biden passed domestic legislation that will generate government spending of at least five trillion dollars,, spread across a wide range of purposes, in every corner of the country. He has also redirected many of the federal government's regulatory agencies in ways that will profoundly affect American life. On Biden's watch, the government has launched large programs to move the country to clean energy sources, to create from scratch or to bring onshore a number of industries, to strengthen organized labor, to build thousands of infrastructure projects, to embed racial-equity goals in many government programs, and to break up concentrations of economic power.

-- "Bidenomics Is Starting to Transform America. Why Has No One Noticed?", Nicholas Lemann, The New Yorker, October 28, 2024

[d-criss-news]

Via Michaelle LeManne Lamb's Instagram Story (September 6th, 2024)

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

'People Think Indigenous People Need to Stay Isolated in the Forest,' Says Indigenous Brazilian Influencer

Riverine creates podcast about Amazonian culture and is chosen to join Lemann Foundation's network of leaders

The word "pavulagem," a typical expression from Amazonas, refers to the act of showing off. "Pabular" (or "pavular") means to boast, according to the Aurélio Dictionary.

Despite the negative connotation, Maickson Serrão, 31, could not have chosen a more fitting term to name his podcast.

In the program of the riverine journalist, he and storytellers narrate legends of the Amazonian oral tradition, in an effort to rescue, proudly display, the culture of the region.

"Many still think that indigenous people should be apart from globalization, isolated in the forest. But the world can learn from us. But for that, it is necessary to dialogue, even with those who think differently."

Continue reading.