|
Post by rogesgallery on Apr 25, 2008 15:29:11 GMT -5
this is in reference to the post below
Some things are hard to change Gail — Powerful Bible based Men don't seem to listen to reason when it comes to the words of women. Women don't grab the guns, take over buildings and plan to destroy the system in order to save it. There is an uncomfortable aspect to this —The SDS, the Weather Underground. and the Black Panthers Did those things and policies Were changed... for a little while anyway.
I'm sure you remember this one:
Christine Craft was the protagonist of a saga that, back in the '80s, put a glaring spotlight on gender discrimination in the media.
She started her media career in 1974 at Salinas TV station KSBW-TV, and over the next few years gathered extensive experience in all newsroom positions. By 1979 she was co-anchoring the news at KEYT-TV in Santa Barbara when she got the call from KMBC-TV in Kansas City.
Signed to a two-year co-anchor contract in 1980 by KMBC, she found herself unceremoniously dumped from that position a few months later and demoted to reporter because, the station said, focus groups said she was "too old, too unattractive and wouldn't defer to men." Neither deferential nor a doormat, she sued in federal court for breach of contract (Craft vs. Metromedia) and was awarded $500,000 by a jury.
The station appealed and got the judgment overturned. At a second trial, the jury also ruled in her favor, and once again the station prevailed on appeal. When the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, it ended - to be spotlighted later in her 1986 book Too Old, Too Ugly, Not Deferential to Men, which received the Rhodora Prize. She was named one of the top five collegiate speakers in the U.S. in 1984, and her story was featured in an exhibit at the Newseum museum of broadcasting in Washington, D.C.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sure women have gained positions of power in this country but it is usually "the wrong women at the wrong time". The case of Condeleeza Rice is a prime example of this. Where is the good sense behind putting a female Soviet expert in charge of developing relations in the Jewish and the Arab world — two cultures openly oriented toward the submissive role of women. Putting her in that position was, and has remained a failed policy decision. The sad part is that Secretary Rice will be held historically accountable (women), not the policy makers.(men)
The moral to this story is: Look out Lilly Ledbetter! You are about to be made to live up to your name by the seditious Tag Team of (male) US politics.
I Am...No expert, but if one looks closely enough, reality soon forms between the lines of illusion. Roges
PS I will write my Congess "Women" to voice 'my' support of this issue, though both Murray(D) and Cantwell(D) Have voiced support for it.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Apr 25, 2008 15:32:46 GMT -5
I moved this up so it wouldn't be lost on the previous page page I received this today and was surprised as hell. Can't believe McCain would take this position - he has a daughter! The Ledbetter case was the one dismissed by the Sup. Ct. because she hadn't filed her complaint within 180 days of the start of the discrimination. She had worked 19 years at Goodyear when she learned she was making much less than men in the same job. On Wednesday, Senate Republicans filibustered the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a law that would have overturned an appalling Supreme Court decision that practically abolished remedies for gender-based compensation discrimination in the workplace. In opposing this legislation, Senator John McCain said that if women want better-paying jobs, they just need more "education and training." Then, he didn't even show up for the vote.
Let's tell Senator McCain that should stop blocking an up or down vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act if he wants to ensure equal rights for women under the law.
Please have a look and take action. act.credoaction.com/campaign/mccain_vs_ledbetter/?r_by=26-471790-p863wJ&rc=confemail
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Apr 25, 2008 17:35:29 GMT -5
Thanks, roges. I do remember Christine Craft, but I'd forgotten. Lord, that doesn't seem long enough ago for such a thing to have happened. I suppose the network's argument is that it's not like any other workplace - the package is looks and manner. You may have noticed that Judy Woodruff - former CNN and knock-out reporter/ interviewer - is now on PBS where they don't think you have to be gorgeous. But deferential I think the reason for the appeal to jump on McCain is that the vote was so close. He made that supid sexist remark and also didn't turn up to vote. It will be interesting to see whether the MSM pick up on this story. I'm still wondering if that's all he said - but not voting kind of speaks for itself. I suppose when you're married to a millionaire heiress you don't worry about women's salaries. K, I missed your answer yesterday. Glad to see you'll be going back to Kabul at night. Somehow that seems safer. And isn't it ironic that this fair wages issue is in the same thread with our own woman doctor going off to do humanitarian work in a war zone? The issues in political potluck blend into each other.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Apr 25, 2008 18:10:26 GMT -5
IMHO the only way to achieve equality between men and women in this world is for women to take off their shirts and leave them off all summer. The biggest wedge (NPI) between men and women is the silly archaic practice of the hidden breast. Exposed ankles achieved the vote, Bra burning got the ball rolling but if you really want to fight for equality "Take it off for your granddaughters!" I am not kidding!
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Apr 25, 2008 18:46:58 GMT -5
roges, I'm up for that idea and I'm sure if you ever see me so (un)dressed, you'd be up for it, too.
|
|
|
Post by brutus on Apr 25, 2008 20:31:03 GMT -5
IMHO the only way to achieve equality between men and women in this world is for women to take off their shirts and leave them off all summer. The biggest wedge (NPI) between men and women is the silly archaic practice of the hidden breast. Exposed ankles achieved the vote, Bra burning got the ball rolling but if you really want to fight for equality "Take it off for your granddaughters!" I am not kidding! Careful, Roges, stuff like this is what helped get Viking Dave booted off the Chatterbox some time back! ~B~
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Apr 25, 2008 22:56:37 GMT -5
I'm glad this isn't the Chatterbox Cafe. I never knew Viking Dave.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Apr 25, 2008 23:30:31 GMT -5
Hmm It seems to me that participation dropped by about 50% after VD got kicked off.
I hope you're not serious Brut, because this was not some dirty little comment, I was serious. It is the physical differences between the sexes which divide them. It certainly is not the intellectual difference because for the most part Women are more intellectual than men. As long as men can sit around ogling and joking about boobs and butts women will be taken advantage of by those men who are physically stronger and more egotistically driven.
You remove the blouse and pretty soon what is under it becomes commonplace. Then we are one step closer to equality. The two examples above, separated by 24 years, are proof that the gap between the sexes (in the general public) has not closed yet.
As far as the comment on religion — Religion has always been at the root of sexual inequality.
You are probably right though Brut. This may not be the proper place to discuss radical idea's. And I am trying to find a middle road somewhere between radicalism and change.
Thanks Roges
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Apr 25, 2008 23:37:29 GMT -5
Roges, I'm not so sure about your hypothesis. There was and is a huge inequality between sexes in Africa and we all know from reading National Geographic that those women ran around flopping.
I think I'd like to discuss the roots of inequality. If I start the thread, will you add to it?
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Apr 26, 2008 0:09:38 GMT -5
Of course I will. My statements above are necessarily incomplete. It is tough to discuss philosophical topics without the direct advantage of face to face point and counterpoint. There is not the physical reference to allow one to determine if someone has misunderstood your comment.
Sometimes I worry that Joe takes my comments personally.
|
|
|
Post by brutus on Apr 26, 2008 4:56:31 GMT -5
"I hope you're not serious Brut, because this was not some dirty little comment, I was serious." Nooo, Roger, I wasn't serious at all. It was a little tongue-in-cheek remark referring to a thread concerning such things. Viking Dave said something about a time when little boys were running around the beach with.....errr......obvious excitation because they'd just caught a glimpse of a ladies ankle peaking out of the end of the leg of one of those "full length" swim suits. He was referring to a time when folks bared nothing. "You are probably right though Brut. This may not be the proper place to discuss radical idea's." I think, Roges, that radial ideas are more welcome here than in the old place. Our friend, Trusty, has seen to it that we're more free to be less moderated here because of just such. I surely noticed a totally different air about this site, compared to APHC. Over there, our Julia was compelled to admonish us about so many infractions because of who owned the site and their ideas of propriety. Ever notice the respectful and tolerant tone to posts replying to the thoughts presented? "Over There", it would have been all-out war, much of the time. Honestly, I think it was time for that site to die. Thanks, Trust-Dude! ~B~
|
|
|
Post by brutus on Apr 26, 2008 5:06:26 GMT -5
I'm glad this isn't the Chatterbox Cafe. I never knew Viking Dave. He was a rabble rouser in the finest form. Opinionated to the Nth degree, verbose, often offensive, never pulled any punches when stating opinions. Caused more than one ruckus. My kinda guy, in lots of ways. He'd tackle Hell with a pitcher of ice water and make the Devil look twice! It was, honestly, time for him to go, however. ~B~
|
|
|
Post by michael on Apr 26, 2008 7:35:48 GMT -5
I don't want women to go around bare chested. I'm not going around bare chested. Roges, what's up with the bare chest stuff, got cabin fever or something?
Roges, remember this song by The Who?
Squeeze Box
Mama's got a squeeze box She wears on her chest And when Daddy comes home He never gets no rest
'Cause she's playing all night And the music's all right Mama's got a squeeze box Daddy never sleeps at night
Well the kids don't eat And the dog can't sleep There's no escape from the music In the whole damn street
'Cause she's playing all night And the music's all right Mama's got a squeeze box Daddy never sleeps at night
She goes in and out and in and out and in and out and in and out
She's playing all night And the music's all right Mama's got a squeeze box Daddy never sleeps at night
She goes, squeeze me, come on and squeeze me Come on and tease me like you do I'm so in love with you Mama's got a squeeze box Daddy never sleeps at night
She goes in and out and in and out and in and out and in and out
'Cause she's playing all night And the music's all right Mama's got a squeeze box Daddy never sleeps at night
'night all! Mike
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Apr 26, 2008 8:12:24 GMT -5
Ugh, Mike. One of my friends in fifth grade (I was in the grade ahead) took great delight in singing that song to me everytime she saw me. It took me a long time to understand her ribbing and by then the friendship ended.
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Apr 28, 2008 13:14:44 GMT -5
I'm glad this isn't the Chatterbox Cafe. I never knew Viking Dave. He was a rabble rouser in the finest form. Opinionated to the Nth degree, verbose, often offensive, never pulled any punches when stating opinions. Caused more than one ruckus. My kinda guy, in lots of ways. He'd tackle Hell with a pitcher of ice water and make the Devil look twice! It was, honestly, time for him to go, however. ~B~ I've told people who got put off by Redboy. He was nothing - I mean nothing - compared to Viking Dave. The thing is, VD was so "out there" that it made you respect him - in a weird sort of way... That was also the time when people didn't get offended at the drop of a hat.
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Apr 28, 2008 13:31:53 GMT -5
I think, Roges, that radial ideas are more welcome here than in the old place. Our friend, Trusty, has seen to it that we're more free to be less moderated here because of just such. I surely noticed a totally different air about this site, compared to APHC. Over there, our Julia was compelled to admonish us about so many infractions because of who owned the site and their ideas of propriety. Ever notice the respectful and tolerant tone to posts replying to the thoughts presented? "Over There", it would have been all-out war, much of the time. Honestly, I think it was time for that site to die. Thanks, Trust-Dude! ~B~ Thank you! From time to time in the past, I have received PM's and emails asking me to "do something" about a poster or thread which would have me "policing" this place constantly, which I can't (and won't) do. It has turned out pretty good because when we realize the freedom we have here, on our own, we will take the responsibility for that freedom. So, taking full responsibility, the only thing I need to say about the bare-chested women thing is - can you include pictures? ;D
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Apr 28, 2008 16:24:25 GMT -5
That was also the time when people didn't get offended at the drop of a hat. It all depends on what's under the hat, Trust.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Apr 28, 2008 18:33:43 GMT -5
Another political issue: I was just astounded to see a PBS report on rising food prices. The poor in Haiti mix dirt with a bit of butter and water, and bake it to feed their hungry kids. Maybe they just dry it in the sun, but it's a sort of hard pancake. There was film of little kids breaking these things and eating a piece at a time. The narrator said it served to stave off hunger pains.
I don't know what to do. Voice of America had this story today on UN responses, but what do we do? Write to Congress? With enough pressure from us our country responded generously after the tsunami, and kids eating dirt seems like a tsunami to me.
UN Holds Food Crisis Talks in Switzerland By Lisa Schlein Geneva 28 April 2008
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is heading emergency talks aimed at tackling the growing crisis caused by soaring food prices around the world. Participating in this two-day high-powered meeting in the Swiss capital, Bern, are the President of the World Bank, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund and the Heads of nearly 30 United Nations aid agencies. Lisa Schlein reports for VOA from Geneva.
U.N. Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon says the steeply rising price of food has developed into a global crisis. He says the U.N.-sponsored meeting in Bern must find solutions to a problem that is increasing poverty, hunger and instability in the world.
The United Nations estimates about 100 million of the world's poorest people cannot afford to buy food. Because of the spiraling costs, the World Food Program says its original budget for this year is not enough to feed all the hungry. It is appealing for an additional three quarters of $1 billion to meet the extra expenses.The U.N. refugee agency says millions of refugees and internally displaced people will be particularly hard hit by skyrocketing food prices. Spokesman, Ron Redmond, says most of these people are totally dependent on food donations from the international community.
"This kind of dramatic price increases can also trigger instability, particularly in poor countries and this is of great concern to UNHCR as well, because we are already seeing this happening in several countries," said Redmond. "Of course, the possibility could be eventual increased displacement should it trigger further conflict and instability in those countries."
The Food and Agriculture Organization warns sharp rises in cereal prices have left 37 poor countries in an emergency situation. This has sparked food riots in many countries including Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Egypt and Senegal.
The meeting in Bern will also address the impact of climate change on food production and explore ways to help poor countries adapt to these changes. The growing controversy over bio-fuels is also on the agenda.
Critics argue that the cultivation of crops for bio-fuels is taking good land away from food production and causing prices to rise. Some people are calling for a moratorium on the production of bio-fuels.
The U.N. meeting is expected to come up with a plan of emergency measures to solve the immediate global food crisis. Participants also will begin to address the longer-term problems.
We talked about the issue of bio-fuels earlier and I wonder how much people recognize that moving to bio-fuels contributes to 100 million people going hungry.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Apr 28, 2008 23:45:27 GMT -5
I saw the PBS story also, slb. Heartrending. Haiti is usually ranked as the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. I wonder why they don't just eat the butter and drink the water? It seems to me that would be safer, but I haven't been to Haiti. I was scheduled a couple of times, but the trips were cancelled due to political unrest. (says she who leaves for Afghanistan on Thursday)
The excellent book by Tracy Kidder "Mountains Beyond Mountains" tells about Dr. Paul Farmer's work toward improving healthcare in Haiti, and elsewhere.
"Hunger" and "starvation" have been relabelled "food insecurity" in some circles. It may sound better, but it's still the same thing.
I'm not sure of the numbers quotation, but I believe that at least two billion people in the world live in extreme poverty, defined as less than $1 per person per day income. The author Jeffrey (or is it Jeremy) Sachs published articles and a book on the subject.
Dr. Sachs provides evidence that it would take less than 1% of the GDP of the 30 wealthiest nations to elevate the 3 or 4 billion people in poverty (that includes those in poverty at $2 per person per day, as well as extreme poverty) out of that condition. That would be the cost of adequate basic healthcare (about $15 to $20 per person per year), as well as primary school education to 6th grade, and agricultural and economic development. It would take 15 - 20 years according to his research.
From our "wealthy" perspective, it seems to take so little to change the lives of so many. And that is the real route to our own homeland security, imho.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Apr 29, 2008 0:02:50 GMT -5
DrK I wonder why they don't just eat the butter and drink the water?
I think the narrator was suggesting that the kids feel full, so they're not suffering as much, though of course there's no nutritional benefit.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Apr 29, 2008 5:34:04 GMT -5
I was shaken by the words of Obama's now-retired preacher, Jeremiah Wright. Little sense in printing them here, as everyone must have seen or heard something about this in the last couple days. One can't help but wonder how close Obama is to this man. True enough, he's said several times that he's divorced himself from the truly hateful rhetoric, but he wasn't specific. My question relates to President Obama and the figures he intends to surround him, the men and women he will appoint to cabinet positions. Frankly, this is one concerned American. Jeremiah Wright is alright. In fact, I think I'll join his church; if he'll have me. Mike
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Apr 29, 2008 9:53:41 GMT -5
I'm sure you'll enjoy yourself, Mike. It'll be a hellava commute, though.
Interesting that whenever Wright opens his mouth, Obama loses another poll point in North Carolina. One more speech ought to get his lead down to the low single digits.
Wright's recent mocking of JFK's accent (ostensibly to make a point that white people are racist) will likely lose many white Dems who were either leaning toward Obama or sitting on the fence. For those who haven't read or heard it, Wright mocked JFK's pronunciation of the word "ask" as it was used in the famous quote, "Ask not what your country..." Wright's contention is that white folk will simply respond to a New Englander's accent with a disinterested shrug, while the same white folk look to black folks’ English pronunciations as a thing that requires remedying. For those interested in sources, URLs and the like, I listened to the talk shows last night, tuned in to CNN, NPR, and FOX. The only source (I am aware of) that aired this was Laura Ingraham.
This good reverend must have the Obama camp paralyzed at this point.
r
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Apr 29, 2008 10:06:39 GMT -5
It sounds as though people find Wright offensive. I might conclude that people don't put a lot of stock in Wright's opinion.
Yet they still listen. Yet they still allow Wright's words to direct their will.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Apr 29, 2008 10:19:44 GMT -5
Yesterday he seemed almost giddy. as I said over on another thread, the Moyers interview was thoughtful [I'm very glad I watched. Wright has a Master's in Religious History from the University of Chicago Divinity school (bio here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright ) and is very bright. Biblical references roll out of his mouth as part of the conversation, enmeshed in how he thinks. Not being a Biblical scholar, I was struggling to keep up at times, so I'll listen again on PBS or read the transcript. I can see why one would keep listening even when he seems over the edge, because he's so challenging and knowledgeable. He looks at all of history and then pins you with a very current application you can't wiggle away from. ]I watched CNN, too, and was struck by how shocked David Gergen sounded. I like him a lot, find him very solid and unbiased. He denounced Wright's defense of himself as self-centered and reckless, forcing Obama to be "steely" and cut away from him completely. It's a shame Wright had to speak now, but since he did, why couldn't heleave well enough alone after the Moyers interview? I hate seeing our country get divided on racial lines.
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Apr 29, 2008 20:20:24 GMT -5
I was shaken by the words of Obama's now-retired preacher, Jeremiah Wright. Little sense in printing them here, as everyone must have seen or heard something about this in the last couple days. One can't help but wonder how close Obama is to this man. True enough, he's said several times that he's divorced himself from the truly hateful rhetoric, but he wasn't specific. My question relates to President Obama and the figures he intends to surround him, the men and women he will appoint to cabinet positions. Frankly, this is one concerned American. Jeremiah Wright is alright. In fact, I think I'll join his church; if he'll have me. Mike This race is becoming more interesting by the day. Obama is recently on record saying he wasn’t concerned over Wright’s past comments, suggesting that conservative media outlets were looping snippets from sermons to besmirch Wright. Today, Obama buried his friend in the turf, based on snippets from Wright's speech to the National Press Club. No one can say with certainty that today’s condemnation of Wright was genuine or simply politically expedient. It may not matter. Gallop (today) has Hillary and Barack head-to-head in a nationwide setting. On the Repub side of the house, we’re looking at the weakest candidate in recent memory. This can only mean that we’re in for an edge-of-the-seater until November. Interesting stuff, folks. r
|
|
|
Post by michael on Apr 29, 2008 21:10:35 GMT -5
Freedom of speech and colorful commentary too! The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is on a roll! I hate the repetitive snippets; I want to hear it all! Anyway, it’s best that this gets blown out of proportion now instead of later when Obama is the Democratic candidate facing McCain. It is typical of the United States that we get bogged in a religious quagmire that (in my opinion) has nothing to do with anything important. I think that the Republicans are rooting for Jeremiah Wright because they fear Obama more than Hillary and would love to see her be the Democratic candidate. But, what do I know; I’m woefully out of my element in matters of politics. Mike P.S. Hi Milhous, glad to see you posting again.
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Apr 29, 2008 21:26:01 GMT -5
Thanks, Mike. BTW, you do rather well in these matters. Your opinion is as weighty as any, in my estimation. More interesting than some, too. I recall going back and forth with J* some moons ago. I'd give a thought or two and she'd respond with a five-page article from the NY Times (no link, but the entire piece) and complete the post with a glib, caustic, sarcastic one-liner. It was frustrating, as one had to argue with the Times, not the generator of the posting.
Anyhow, Mike, you've always been one to give of your gut, your sensibilities.
r
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Apr 30, 2008 0:00:25 GMT -5
This race is becoming more interesting by the day. Obama is recently on record saying he wasn’t concerned not the way I heard it over Wright’s past comments, suggesting that conservative media outlets were looping snippets from sermons to besmirch Wright. Today, Obama buried his friend in the turf, based on snippets he saw the whole thing last night from Wright's speech to the National Press Club.
No one can say with certainty that today’s condemnation of Wright was genuine or simply politically expedient.I saw most of his comments and he couldn't have been more sincere. It may not matter. Gallop (today) has Hillary and Barack head-to-head in a nationwide setting.
A woman I didn't know said on CNN that Catholics have been disgusted by the pedophile scandals and cover-ups, but most have stayed with their church. I thought it was a good analogy.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Apr 30, 2008 0:04:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joew on Apr 30, 2008 10:07:19 GMT -5
… On the Repub side of the house, we’re looking at the weakest candidate in recent memory. … r I remember Bob Dole.
|
|