Pat Thurston's Radio Weblog :
Updated: 6/1/07; 7:51:04 AM.

 

Subscribe to "Pat Thurston's Radio Weblog" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

 
 

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

James Boyce: Ben Affleck Gets It Right.

You often hear that the Democrats are nothing more than a Sodom And Gomorrah Hollywood Party of Miscreants. The right loves to wave the Hollywood liberal flag at the Democrats.

Four quick points before I move on.

Ronald Reagan, Actor, Republican.

Sonny Bono, Entertainer, Republican.

Arnold, Actor, Republican.

Fred Thompson, Actor, Republican.

Maybe that will shut them up, I kid. But one thing I like about Hollywood is that is the ultimate Democratization of business. Everyone at the top is there because of talent and intelligence.

So who has the clearest review of the Democrats? My fellow Bostonian, Ben Affleck, from <a href="http://thetrack.bostonherald.com/moreTrack/view.bg?articleid=1003712&format=text";>The Boston Herald.

"These (bleeping) people," he said. "This is the (bleeping) problem with that. Democrats live in fear of basically being called cowards," he said.

Affleck surmised that the Demmies were afraid to demand timelines for troop withdrawal from Iraq in the spending bill because the president would slam them while they were away for the Memorial Day weekend.

"While they were on vacation they were afraid of being criticized," he said. "So . . . they sacrificed their core political beliefs. And they wonder why people call them (bleeping) weak."

That is exactly how I feel.

- James Boyce [The Huffington Post Full Blog Feed]
10:46:55 AM    comment []

Kathleen Reardon: What Next? 180 Days To Notice Racial Discrimination?


Another piece of Bush Administration handiwork delivered by The Supreme Court has undermined the rights of the underrepresented. Overall, women's salaries are still far <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/23/news/economy/gender_gap/index.htm";>below that of their male colleagues, and in Ms. Ledbetters's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/washington/30scotus.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin";>case, 40 percent less than that of the lowest paid male. What kind of Supreme Court considers such conditions acceptable? Who other than a group of ultraconservative judges paying into the White House favor bank would think for a moment that 180 days is enough time to discover pay discrimination, let alone decide whether to take action and how to go about doing so?

Most people begin their careers as political purists. They don't know how things are done. They've never confronted a clandestine culture systematically excluding minorities from high profile positions and equal pay.

Besides, employees in what I call the "cute and little" phase of their careers mistake helpful people for supportive ones. Not yet a threat to anyone, earnest mentors appear to abound. At this point in their careers, the cute-and-little say things like, "I don't know what Betty Friedan and all those women were shouting about, where I work everyone has my best interests at heart." Or "There's no glass ceiling or discrimination here. People couldn't be nicer."

I wrote <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Handshake-Mastering-Politics-Business/dp/0385495285/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-6626010-8072752?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177191275&sr=8-2";>The Secret Handshake and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Its-All-Politics-Winning-Talent/dp/0385507577/ref=pd_sim_b_1/104-3322927-8319968?ie=UTF8&qid=1177191275&sr=8-2";>It's All Politics as wake-up calls. When you take a job, it's time to open your eyes. Apparently it's also 179 days shy of when you need to file a prophylactic lawsuit to protect yourself from pay discrimination. Most people aren't even out of a probationary period at that time let alone sufficiently connected and accepted to go around asking how much their colleagues are being paid. And then there's the task of finding a good lawyer without a conflict of interest who'll do anything other than patronizingly smile.

What's next? How about 180 days to file suit for racial discrimination or sexual harassment?

Apparently Judge Alito and company would argue that new and young employees have only themselves to blame if they don't stand up and say within 180 days, "There appears to be a culture of discrimination here evidenced by unequal pay. " Take a look at the Harvard Business Review case I wrote some years back - The <a href="http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b02/en/search/searchResults.jhtml?Ntx=mode%2Bmatchallpartial&Ntt=Reardon&x=13&y=10&N=105&Ntk=main_search";>Memo Every Woman Keeps In Her Desk. Soon there won't be time for mulling over a potential memo advising senior management of organizational cultural flaws and illegalities. If this Supreme Court has its way, such memos will need to be sent forthwith, as the 180-day clock will be ticking.

Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg has called for Congress to overturn this absurd, anti-employee ruling. Can they do it? Won't they cave again -- sell us down the river for a lunch with the President? Most of these people can't tie their shoes without checking to see how many big donors they might offend.

How revoltingly protective this country has become of corporations as if they can't protect themselves. The mantra on the Hill now is - "But this might hurt big business." What about the little guy/gal? Being so constantly on the side of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath";>Goliaths, well able to take care of themselves, is un-American. And it's shameful.

How about 180 days for employers to decide whether to layoff employees? After that, shouldn't they know what they got themselves into? How about a 180-day statute of limitations on all crimes? Why not? If the police can't find them in that time, what were they doing?

Oh, I have an idea. How about a 180-day term for Supreme Court Justices? What's that you say Judge? You need more time to learn the job? You can't possibly know what's expected or even get the lay of the land in that time, you say? Unfair? What? You'll sue? Sorry, time's up --- next.

- Kathleen Reardon [The Huffington Post Full Blog Feed]
7:36:56 AM    comment []

Jason Leopold | An Interview With David Iglesias. Jason Leopold interviews former US attorney for New Mexico, David Iglesias, one of eight US attorneys fired in December for reasons that appear to have been motivated by partisan politics. Iglesias says he believes a "smoking gun" exists that will lead directly to Karl Rove and blow the scandal wide open. [t r u t h o u t]
7:17:15 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2007 Patricia Thurston.



Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website.
 


May 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Apr   Jun