Feminists never seem to be able to make up their minds. Below is the Amazon summary of "Why Women Should Rule the World" by Dee Dee Myers. Larry Summers will no doubt be amazed. He lost his job at Harvard for saying that women are different
What would happen if women ruled the world? Everything could change, according to former White House press secretary Dee Dee Myers. Politics would be more collegial. Businesses would be more productive. And communities would be healthier. Empowering women would make the world a better place-not because women are the same as men, but precisely because they are different.
Blending memoir, social history, and a call to action, Dee Dee Myers challenges us to imagine a not-too-distant future in which increasing numbers of women reach the top ranks of politics, business, science, and academia.
Reflecting on her own tenure in the Clinton administration and her work as a political analyst, media commentator, and former consultant to NBC's The West Wing, Myers assesses the crucial but long-ignored strengths that female leaders bring to the table. "Women tend to be better communicators, better listeners, better at forming consensus," Myers argues. In a highly competitive and increasingly fractious world, women possess the kind of critical problem-solving skills that are urgently needed to break down barriers, build understanding, and create the best conditions for peace.
Myers knows firsthand the responsibilities and rewards of taking on leadership roles traditionally occupied by men. At thirty-one, she was appointed [Via the "casting couch", one imagines] White House press secretary to President Bill Clinton-the first woman ever to hold the job. In a candid look at her years in Washington's political spotlight, she recalls the day-to-day challenge of confronting a press corps obsessed with more than just the president's policies. "Virtually every story written about me included observations about my earrings, my makeup, my clothes, my shoes. And then there was my hair."
Recalling the pressures-both invited and imposed-of her West Wing years, Myers offers a hard-hitting look at the challenges women must overcome and the traps they must avoid as they travel the path toward success. From pioneering research in the laboratory, to innovations in business, entertainment, and media, to friendships that transcend partisanship in the U.S. Senate, she describes how female participation in public life has already transformed the world in which we live.
Bob Parks writes:
"I Hate Kids." That's how I always started off my after-school video production class speech. "I hate kids. I like working with young adults, but I hate kids." I'm sure some of you can imagine how quickly their little jaws drop when I say that. I remind them that when they come to the television studio, they're no longer in school where teachers have to put up with their crap. I can fire anyone for the slightest misbehaving. There are thousands of dollars of video equipment here, so I don't have the time to be a babysitter.
Today's children are not used to hearing this. They believe all the BS about them being "the future", thus most expect we adults must genuflect when in their presence. They believe they have rights, freedom of expression, and are on equal footing with adults, and to be quite honest, most lack the maturing to be awarded any of those things.
All adults should be paid to have to put up with them. For example, you couldn't pay me enough to be a school bus driver. Almost three years ago, I cited a few examples why. Nothing has changed, especially after what happened last week in Gilbert, Arizona. According to ABC News.
"Tensions began with the 15-year-old girl pretending not to be on the list of authorized passengers. The situation escalated when (driver Kim) Sullivan pulled the bus over and asked, "Why are you on this bus?" and suggested she "find another way" to get to and from school. "The tape shows Sullivan trying to confront a student trying to exit the bus at an unauthorized stop after the two got into a discussion about her being disruptive on the bus."What would you do if an unruly teen not only played games with the rules, but also publicly challenged you in front of others? You're responsible for their safety, yet a young teenaged girl gets in your face, uses profanity, and threatens physical violence? You know however it turns out, you'll be thought of as being in the wrong, the little darling's mom will assume you were out of line, you may get fired, and probably sued.
There was a time when an authority figure's claim of our misbehaving would seal our doom with our parents. It was always assumed if a teacher said we did it, we did it. But today, if a teacher says a kid was acting up, the normal parental response is, "Are you sure it was my child? My child would never do that." The kid hears that teacher's authority challenged by the willing-sucker parent, and a future license is informally issued for future disruption.
If I were named Secretary of Education tomorrow, one of the first things I'd do away with is the notion that kids have rights. Sure, they have a reasonable expectation of coming to a safe environment and being afforded courteous treatment by school faculty and administration. But as far as their having "rights", hell no.
If the school has a dress or grooming code, some parents openly defy those rules, and sometimes go as far as suing the school. "I understand they have a dress code. I understand he has a uniform. But this is total discrimination. They can't tell me how I can cut his hair." And we get all shocked when kids act up.
When we were in school and there was a locker search, it was just done. It was understood, by students and parents alike, that those lockers were school property. Nowadays, our children assume those lockers are their own personal property and their parents would call the ACLU in a heartbeat if they felt their little darling's privacy was violated.
When we were in school, it was understood that if a bus driver told us to sit down and shut up, we did so. There was none of this getting in the face of that driver with all the R-rated language there was time to deliver. And God help us if our parents found out.
I do hate most kids today. They lack in phone etiquette, don't bathe regularly (thank you Axe), and lack manners in general. They assume they are on equal footing with adults and that we must show them respect. My father taught me that people, upon first meeting, deserved to be treated in a courteous manner. Respect was earned. I'd throw most kids under the bus today before I'd ever give them a thankless ride in one. But that's only me..
By Evan Sayet
Liberals do not "self"-destruct. They only hurt others. Their "courage," their "charity" their "caring" always comes at someone else's expense. Liberals are always incredibly generous and courageous so long as they take no risks themselves and they are sure that it will cost them nothing.
Al Gore "cares" about the environment, but only so long as he personally pockets millions and thanks to a loophole available only to the super rich like him, is able to continue to run his indoor pool full bore for just a couple of pennies out of the millions he extorts from others as an "environmental expert" the way Al Sharpton makes his fortune by "consulting" on race policy at corporations.
Similarly, Ted Kennedy is a "big time environmentalist" until the day the science shows that the best place for a wind farm is off his daddy's "compound" (not far from where he got away with killing a woman not all that long ago). Suddenly "the environment" just isn't that important to him if it partially obstructs his "pristine view" of the water.
Democrats "care" about "the poor" only so long as they can tax someone else to pay for the programs they create and then tax them again to pay for the bureaucracy to handle the administration so that they don't actually have to do any work in getting that money to "the poor."
In a book called "Who Really Cares?" -- the most exhaustive study ever conducted on who actually gives to charity -- in utter opposition to what the leftist liars in the news and entertainment fields have sold for years, by far and away the MOST generous are religious conservatives and by far and away the LEAST compassionate are the secular Liberals. Brooks concludes about the leftists (I'll paraphrase from memory)"apparently some people believe that holding the right political position is a substitute for actually doing anything."
Still, one would think that destroying the movie industry -- turning it from the darling of the American people into something only twelve year olds attend -- would be a form of "self" destruction for the people who work in that industry. Nope.
Years ago there was a thing called "the studio system." It was headed by businessmen who risked their own money to make a product that would return a profit. There were a variety of reasons why they cared enough to make good movies, not least of them being that, because they were personally invested in the outcome of a movie, they wanted to keep the customer satisfied.
Then actors were what they should be, nicely paid pretty faces who had to entertain their audiences because they needed to keep working. Humphrey Bogart made a good salary, but not so much that he could say "F--k you" to his audience.
Today, folks like Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon make two, three, ten and even twenty million dollars for movies that bomb at the box office and then they are set for life. They have no personal stake in the outcome of the picture because they rarely -- if ever -- have the courage to invest in their own efforts.
Telling is that, when the "courageous" Steven Spielberg wasn't yet set for life, the movies he made were good ones and we went to see them. Back then he made "Jaws" and "E.T." and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and his audience for these good movies made him filthy rich.
It wasn't until he had pocketed so much money that no amount of failure could in any way intrude on his personal fun, that he decided to become "important," and make his Marxist-penned, lie-filled, pro-terrorist propaganda film "Munich." It, of course, bombed at the box office specifically because it was a Marxist-penned, lie-filled, pro-terrorist propaganda film, but that in no way has kept Speilberg from buying anything he wants anytime he wants it and being the toast of a town (even an Academy Award nomination for "best picture") where Marxism is adored, propaganda the goal and the terrorists their allies.
Telling is that when Sean Penn still needed money, he made the cute and fun "Fast Times at Ridgemont High." It wasn't until after he was so filthy rich that nothing could intrude on his personal fun, that he decided that he'd become an "important" and "courageous" actor and director. Can anyone think of a successful Sean Penn movie of the past, say, ten years?
Can you name me one successful movie that Susan Sarandon has ever made? Why would she bother. He biggest grossing movie ever (in real dollars) was "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" where this great "artist" spent the entire movie in her panties singing "Toucha-toucha-toucha-touch me." Soon thereafter she discovered her "courage" so long as the residual checks kept pouring in from the movie where she showed off the goods.
Meanwhile, while Spielberg, Penn and Sarandon continue to pocket the ten, twenty and thirty million dollar guarantees for movies that bomb each and every time out, the middle class worker who finances their efforts through their pension plans and 401Ks continues to pay the bills. Remember, Liberals are ALWAYS generous, so long as it's someone else's money.
You know how leftists love to bitch about CEO's who, at the age sixty-five -- after forty years of being one of the people working their way up the ladder -- make something like fifty times the salary of their average employee (including interns and menial-skilled workers). Ever try to calculate what Spielberg makes on each failed movie compared to what the gaffers, grips and the driver of the "roach coach" makes? Clooney gets, what, ten...twenty...THIRTY million dollars for six weeks "work?" Let's say he does two, three or four movies a year, that's, taking the middle figure, eighty million dollars a year not counting residuals, merchandising, and other huge paydays for doing nothing.
Compare and contrast that with the average annual income of the people who actually do the work of making a movie -- the gaffer and the best boy, for example. I don't think the carpenter on the set is making a million a year of one eightieth of what a "courageous" guy like Clooney makes.
And it's not like these leftists don't know it. Consider the song by Jackson Browne, his highest grossing album ever, "Running on Empty." He closes the album with a "tribute" to the peons in his life including "the roadies."
"They're the first to come and the last to leave," he sings, adding "working for that minimum wage." The hardest working people Browne knows, so, to help them, he wrote them a song, put it on his album, and made a ton more money for himself. What a guy. What a leftist!
Want to know who are amongst the highest paid "below-the-line" people on a movie set? The stars' hairdressers and make-up artists. Want to know why they are so highly paid? Because the stars force the studios (i.e. the middle-aged worker in Iowa who owns Universal Studios stock as part of her retirement package) to pick up the tab for their friends.
Liberals are "compassionate," so long as it doesn't cost them a dime. They are "charitable" so long as the charity comes from taxing someone else. They are "courageous" so long as they risk nothing. They "care" so long as it in no way infringes upon their fun.
Australian Center-Leftist Prime Minister says No to intellectual Left agenda
Kevin Rudd has assured mainstream Australia he will avoid radical social and cultural change by resisting calls to broaden his reform agenda and by sticking to his election promises. The Prime Minister warned that people had "elected the wrong guy" if they believed that once he was in power he would unveil a secret left-wing reform agenda or suddenly yield to pressure from sectional interests.
Calling for people to move beyond "the classical Right-Left divide", Mr Rudd said he had been upfront about his election promises and would focus on delivering them in full. "There's nothing terribly complicated about me," Mr Rudd said. "If you obtain the people's support, that's what you go ahead and do."
The Prime Minister made the comments in an interview with The Weekend Australian to mark Monday's passage of 100 days since he was elected. He also said he had no interest in debating whether the private sector should be contracted to deliver government services, and foreshadowed plans to engage the private sector in his fight to improve the lives of indigenous Australians.
He said that despite the threat to the economy of inflation, he would deliver his promised $31 billion tax-cut plan in full. And despite Opposition warnings of a possible wages breakout, he would also rewrite industrial relations laws as planned.
Mr Rudd will celebrate his 100-day landmark still riding a wave of public support for his formal apology to the indigenous Stolen Generations and his ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The latest Newspoll survey for The Australian, published last week, gave him a record preferred prime minister rating of 70 per cent.
In the lead-up to the election, the Coalition warned voters that Mr Rudd would be a captive of trade union leaders, state Labor governments and sectional interests, and that his pre-election claims of economic conservatism would quickly disappear after he was elected. The Prime Minister also faces a growing clamour from the Left for wider reform outside the promises he made in last year's election campaign. A collection of 20 essays written by academics and thinkers released last week and edited by Robert Manne calls for Mr Rudd to "resume the conversation between public intellectuals and government". The essays urge him to consider some politically risky moves such as scrapping 99-year leases on indigenous land, overhauling negative gearing, limiting first-home buyers' grants and introducing punitive laws on electricity generation and car emissions.
Yesterday Mr Rudd said he had no secret plans and gave short shrift to the wish list. "I think they might have elected the wrong guy," Mr Rudd said. The Prime Minister said he was not worried that his approach would alienate the left wing of the labour movement, stressing that politics had moved "beyond the classical Left-Right paradigm". "It just doesn't apply to the politics of the future," Mr Rudd said. "It's time to put some of these classical, and I think arcane, divides behind us."
Mr Rudd, whose wife, Therese Rein, built a successful job-placement company by delivering Job Network services for the previous Howard government, said the quality of government service was more important than the delivery mechanism. Citing the example of his election promise to lift indigenous life expectancy and literacy standards, Mr Rudd said: "It's not who provides services to indigenous communities, it's who most effectively provides those services to deliver what isthe agreed national set of policy outcomes. "That's where the real debate is. It's not in debates about public or private ownership or classical divides between Left and Right. The key thing here is to have a clearly defined set of objectives for the nation. Then the legitimate intellectual and policy debate for the country, given that we've been elected, is how we best reach those objectives."
The Prime Minister said the high point of his first 100 days was the fact that he could "look the Australian people in the eye" and declare he was keeping his election promises, such as the Kyoto ratification and the indigenous apology. "Why I say that is a high point is that the public have become exceptionally cynical about 'core promises and non-core promises'," he said, referring to his predecessor, John Howard. "I think we have to work incredibly hard, therefore, in order to maintain the public's trust in order to do the things you will need to do into the future."
The low point of his first three months had been the assassination attempt on East Timorese President Jose Ramos Horta - a close friend.
Mr Rudd said he was surprised by the strong national and international reaction to his apology to the Stolen Generations. But he would not be truly satisfied unless he followed the apology with real improvements in indigenous health and education standards. "I am also acutely conscious of the fact that to get effective local community buy-in, we're going to end up with hundreds of different solutions on the ground across the 400 remote Aboriginal communities across the country," he said. "But the ultimate policy effectiveness will be measured against the targets we've set."
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.