wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

eva,
I commend you for speaking out. I'm sorry that it cost you. I guess we all have to find the balance between speaking out against that kind of offense and keeping your job. I wish it were not so. I hope it will not always be so. I hope people will be willing to examine themselves honestly, because if your own garden is not in order then how do you comment on someone else's?

I don't think there is any such thing as a bombing strategy that "works." It's an oxymoron like "military solution."

Have a good night.

mc,
I felt it was really important to speak up about it. In this case, they were clearly and repeatedly violating state labor laws, and yet bringing it to the attention of management was considered outrageous, rather than in the best interest of the firm. The way I see it is that it cost me, but it would have cost me more had I not said anything. But unlike you, I don't have children to support, so can speak out more freely about things like that (or so I naively believe....)

Along similar lines: For a long time, I've really listened to my more conservative non-military friends, and they influenced my failure to protest the Iraq invasion. I was against it, but so were my friends who actually were in the military and were being stop-lossed. Now I speak out more freely. And I am much more skeptical about people who explain to me how a bombing strategy will work. I think those things "worked" in WWII, when individuals didn't have access to nuclear materials to make dirty bombs. It's a different landscape now, and to be honest, I don't believe that it always worked so well in the past.
Oh well. Signing off, have a good rest of the day!

eva,
I hear you about the office. It is mind blowing as you say, what is considered acceptable to say in a work setting. As you said, you just stand there with your mouth open. It i interesting what you say about the Ivy League veneer; that might be similar to my experience of what I call "progressive bigotry." People who consider themselves so smart, and educated and "progressive" that there is no way they could be sexist or racist. I beg to differ. You can use longer and fancier words, but it's bigotry all the same. You're right, you have to laugh it off--complaining about it will just mean that you don't get hired the next time (the work I do tends to be short jobs). But when I see it in politics I feel a responsibility to speak out on others' behalf, the way I hope others will for me.

seth,
Now you are talking. I would have LOVED to see the candidates join together for something like that. The first person that I heard actually really come out and acknowledge what HRC went through was Michelle Obama whom I'm sure really knows from racism/sexism.

My aim is to be an irritant. I think that we are all infected with bias and the only way to truly cleanse ourselves is to question our own behavior and attitudes.

As far as dynasties go, I'm with you. It is a little easier for me to swallow if the person actually wins an election, even though as we all know, it is hardly a level playing field. I was very unenthusiastic about HRC's run for senate in '00 but for my part, she was a better choice than Rick Lazio. If Caroline Kennedy ran for senate, I might well vote for her, depending on her opponent(s). I just can't quite swallow the idea of appointing her.

mc,
right on.
CT Whitman was my shortening of Christie Todd Whitman.

Ironically, at the time Clinton began her candidacy, I was working in perhaps the most sexist office environment I had ever seen. It was just mind-blowing. The kinds of things that are so outrageous that you just stand there with your mouth open and think: surely they know that this (and this, and this, and this) is illegal?

But they had the shiny veneer of Ivy League credentialism, and with that, I've learned, you can get away with really quite a bit. I am embarrassed to say it, but after that experience, I have a bad tendency now to see a Harvard background as a drawback, not a plus.

It could have been worse for me, at least we hired women, we didn't hire blacks. Then again, given the sort of situation into which we hired women, I don't know if it was any sort of favor! You gotta laugh, otherwise I swear you'll go nuts thinking about this stuff.

mc,
I hope you'll join with me in supporting measures to reduce the level of family dynasties in politics.

No more widows or widowers should be allowed to fill seats of deceased spouses. No more sons or daughters should be allowed to run for the same position held by their father or mother.

mc,
Unfortuantely, I think racism, sexism, anti-semism, homophobia, and anti-atheist bias will always be with us. You're one of the most intelligent, insightful, engaging,and thoughtful people to post on thse message boards. I'd never suggest that you shut up about anything. I think Obama and Hillary could have blunted the sexist and racist rhetoric if they made a joint televised statement at the start of the campaign that went as follows; Obama: If you're voting for me because you can't support a woman candidate, I don't want your vote and prefer you stay home.
Hillary: If you're voting for me because you can't support an African-american candidate, I don't want your vote and prefer you stay home.

...Jesse Jackson Jr...

...Beau Biden...

A word about crying sexism. I did not actually hear HRC do it, I did it and other supporters did it. It is not about her it is about us. I work in an industry that has a very sketchy relationship with women and an even worse one with black people. I learned a long time ago not to cry "sexism" even when I am very obviously the target. But when I see someone else victimized--you bet, I will point it out.

Sorry seth, it's not going away. Until everyone holds themselves accountable for all the bigotry we all hold in our hearts it will not go away. And I will not shut up about it.

eva,
Thanks for acknowledging the unanswered questions. I never questioned anyone who had a real political disagreement with HRC. You know that I deplored her vote for the war the same way I deplored Schumer's, Kerry's Biden's etc.

I give less credit than you do to people whom you say it isn't the "sum of their judgment." For some it was, for some it wasn't. I simply ask that they examine their motives, nothing more. I don't know who you mean by CT Whitman.

Sorry, but I actually do think BHO is rather hot. As for not imploding, maybe that's because he never stopped SMOKING.

Seth, you're totally right. It's over. But without this argument, I have no reason to live. (kidding.)
mc,
Seth is right, we'll probably never agree, and should just move past it. But the questions you raised are important, and I'm glad you asked them.

eva
Haven't seen "Waltz with Bashir"

eva and mc
I hope Patterson can withstand the temptation of Caroline's wealth and appoint a member of the NY congressional delegation.

mc and eva,
You both make your points with precision and passion, but I wish we could move past the pros and cons of Hillary and the role of sexism in the campaign.

Seth,
Thanks, I always look for your posts, too.
Did you see the new "Waltz with Bashir" film from Israel? It's brilliantly done. Best film I've seen all year, and that's saying something.

mc,
I can't support Caroline Kennedy for the same reasons I had problems with the HRC for senate candidacy. Enough with the nepotism. It's not healthy for a democracy. The fact that there are plenty of examples of it doesn't make it right. In fact, the fact that there are plenty of examples of it is why we have to fight it.

mc,

You continue to imply ("ask") about sexism in regard to peoples' perceptions of HRC, instead of acknowledging that she made some decisions that many people are not happy with, and she was able to make those decisions from a vaunted senate seat that some of us (who are women) don't feel she acquired fairly.

So my 3 questions for you are: 1) was it fair/just/moral/right that HRC just walked into New York and suddenly ran for senate? 2) Did the influence of her husband and his lobbying group (I mean, his "foundation"!) not concern you in this past election? 3) Did the vote to authorize Bush to go to war, voting as she was with no children who would be affected by the mobilization, not concern you?

"There seems to be a wide distaste for HRC that to me looks completely out of proportion to anything she has ever done."

I wouldn't argue that there isn't a component of sexism in the distaste of some people for HRC. There was often a component or racism in how some people who supported her saw Obama, but it wasn't the sum of their judgment. And most of us had far more serious problems with HRC. Problems I've listed again and again...

If you were talking about CT Whitman, I'd take it more seriously. CT Whitman didn't benefit unfairly from a sexist institution, and then cry "sexism" when she was down in the polls. So my fourth question is: Do you see how this sort of hypocrisy unnerved a lot of women (and men)?

"I ask myself if the fact that naked ambition might be less attractive in a 60ish woman than it is in a younger, and arguably hot-looking man."

Are you saying Barack is "hot"? With those jug ears? Prego.... He spoke well, he got there on his own with few of the advantages of HRC, he kept a cool head throughout a weird primary while HRC virtually imploded from the stress... what was not to like if the choice was between the two of them?

mc,
In the long run, I don't think it's a good thing to have so many politicians in Congress or in Governors' mansions who share a blood line with a predecessor.
For starters, I think it should be illegal for a widow or widower to be appointed to fill a seat held by a deceased spouse.

... Kathleen Sebelius, Jeanne Carnahan.....

eva,
By the way, I am not lumping you in with said "scorned progressives." But I have had a belly full of them. Ugh! They are as bad as the right-wingers in terms of self-examination. As for coming up on the coattails of her husband, well, many people started out with a name and not much else. I was very underwhelmed when she ran for senator but she surprised me by being a good senator. The list of people getting in on a name is long: Ted Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, Andrew Cuomo, David Paterson....

eva,
It's great to read so many posts from you today! After Election Day when several days passed and I saw no posts from you, I was concerned that you had disappeared never to be heard from again.
It's great to see that you have just as much passion as ever following the election results.

eva,
Please. I never said HRC was a feminist candidate. I never even mentioned the word feminist because it has become so loaded. Here is the problem I have: There seems to be a wide distaste for HRC that to me looks completely out of proportion to anything she has ever done. I ask myself if the fact that naked ambition might be less attractive in a 60ish woman than it is in a younger, and arguably hot-looking man. The fact that people who consider themselves "progressives" refuse to even consider that this might have colored their attitudes fills me with scorn for them. It fills me with scorn for the Dem party. I am not saying that everyone who opposes a particular candidate is sexist or whatever. I am posing the question and most of the time (except once in a while from someone who is particularly thoughtful) the question is dismissed and not answered.

hjs,

re: Israel lobby

Every ethnic and religious group in this country has a lobby. It's totally legal.
The question is whether said lobby is actually serving the needs of the group it's been hired to represent, or whether, after many years (and you see this a lot, regardless of the group) it exists only to serve the interests of the lobby, while making half-witted decisions that negatively impact the people it was supposed to represent.

mc,

I will stand by my Empress Dowager comments.
The Empress Dowager was a formidable woman, though not someone I much respect. She developed her power not as an independent, a la Christie Todd Whitman, or Dianne Feinstein, or Barbara Boxer, or even Nancy Pelosi, but through her marital status. During that time, however, the Empress Dowager had no other option - it was a rigged system. Obviously, women like Barbara Boxer had other options, and I admire each of the American women I mentioned,except for HRC, for getting ahead ON THEIR OWN. Now THAT's a strong feminist statement from them. HRC got to the senate by tolerating Bill. That's weird.

And to me, that's anti-feminist. I could not understand why it was said that she was somehow a feminist candidate. By running in New York by the privilege of her former status as first lady (first lady status acquired through marriage, it's not an elected office) she took away opportunities from actual New York public servants, some of whom would arguably have been female.

It still honestly baffles me why HRC was viewed as any kind of feminist candidate.

I know you disagree, and I respect that. I don't expect to convince you. But I stand by my earlier comments, and I disagree that comparing her to the Empress Dowager, who also gained political entry through marriage, is sexist.

Robert #4
Wondering what it is that particularly turns you off about either.

eva,
Would never accuse you of sexism vis-a-vis the "red phone" but might for the "empress dowager" remark you made some months ago.

I think both HRC and BHO are going to have heavy lifts and steep learning curves. Both are indebted to the Israel lobby. We'll see... For the Supreme Court I would rather see someone less partisan, believe it or not.

eva
rational?
dems always have to talk tough, americans think dems are weak and like to give hugs.

(please don't talk about isr#$l you'll wake peter from sunset)

That's interesting, Karen. Could it be that it's the reason today was chosen? I don't know about these things, could Hillary have had input as to what day to be heard? I like the snake connection. Can that be Bill? LOL.

So, foreign governments might contribute to a foundation dedicated to fighting AIDS, global poverty and global climate change? This is a bad thing?

Or is it bad because they hope that it might convince Hillary Clinton to side with them? No one is saying that she will be swayed, right? Rather, they are saying that the donors might have that motivation. Now why is this bad again?

Or it's bad because others might think that such donations might sway her? Not that she's the ultimate decision-maker, right? I mean, Obama will still be president, right? So, what might play out here. Some countries might think that other countries are getting a bit more of a hearing for their donations, when they are in conflict with another country that has given a donation to the Clinton Foundation?

What will the impact of that be? Well, they might make a donation themselves. Or...

Here's the nightmare scenario. Countries A & B are in conflict. A has made a donation, and B has not. B uses the donation issue as a cover for not really engaging, publicly proclaiming that the mediator (i.e. Clinton) was not dealing fairly. Thus, they have a cover.

So what? Would B have engaged if there wasn't a Clinton Foundation, or would B have found another excuse?

Look, those inclined to distrust the US will always find a way or a reason. Those disinclined to engage will always find an excuse. The Clinton Foundation changes none of this.

hjs,
Ha! I told you so. :)
It was a reasonable issue to bring up, unfortunately, it only raised more questions about her ability to say anything rational into said red phone.
Having said that, I did like the "respect" note for Iran, as noted in a recent Obama speech. That's actually quite radical, given our history of foreign policy.
It's also pragmatic.
Respect. Why not? I hope HRC can run with that.
But I don't think HRC was ever in a position to say such a thing, and in part that is due to her own fear that being a woman meant she would have to be thatcher-tough. Also - she was far too indebted to the Israel lobby, a lobby which, IMHO, has done more to harm Israel's security than any Palestinian could manage.

EB White wrote a book about NY, which wnyc gave as a giveaway a few fund drives ago, but the poem Brian referred to that was widely quoted after 9/11, I believe was by Auden

I meant "Patron SAINT," not state.

From today's entry in Schott's Miscellaney desk calendar:

"Feast day of St. Hilary of Poitiers, patron state invoked against snakebites."

Guess that we want Clinton, as Secretary of State, to protect us against snakes of all kinds, so the entry is fitting and perhaps even a prediction.

eva, that's sexist!
what was wrong with the red fone add? was it not a fair question?
i would have loved her on the Supreme Court, just cause it would have made the right CRAZY!

so the clinton foundation is the democrats' version of bush's "Carlyle Group?" almost makes me want to be a democrat.

I think the soundtrack for the confirmation hearings should be Cake's "I Bombed Korea." A not-necessarily country-specific song.

Robert's entitled to his opinion as stated in #1. I was seriously hoping she'd be picked for the Supreme Court eventually, or somewhere else she'd be kept far from the missile stockpile.

Having said that, you can't have everything, and if you had to get the Clintons out of your way, I guess keeping one of them in plain sight is arguably a strategic decision.

But I think for many Americans, the image of her, in part due to her own red-phone campaign last year, has become inextricably linked to a certain cartoon absurdity. Like Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove.

I'll no doubt be accused of sexism for writing this... sorry.

mc: 2000 voted for Hiillary Clinton,
2006 voted but not for any Senator...didn't like anyone. I always vote if I don't like anyone on a particular ticket I just don't vote that line. Been doing it that way over 40 years.

Next time not even Schumer gets my vote and I always liked him until just this morning I heard he make a speech that really turned me off. OK?

Robert:
Whom did you vote for in 2000 and 2006 for senator?

The Republicans better not screw this hearing up by giving Hillary a hard time.
We all know she's going to be confirmed, so it won't serve their interests to ask her confrontational questions.
If Republicans go down this partisan path, they will only make themselves look warped, frustrated, and bitter.

Frankly, I don't want Hillary Clinton to be the Secretary of State. I don't even want her to be my Senator either!! That's my vote.