Hillary: "Talent Is Universal, Opportunity Is Not"

Post stolen from Melissa McEwan, the Secretary of State speaking at the Female Heads of State And Foreign Ministers Luncheon:

As many of you know, I have advocated for many years that women are the key to progress and prosperity around the world. I believe that. I know that many of you do as well. And the evidence increasingly supports that assertion. We know that investments in women yield very big dividends, and we want women to be given the tools so that they can make the most out of their own lives run for office to be president or prime minister, work your way up to be appointed to a position of foreign minister, so many opportunities, because we know there is so much talent.

But what I have concluded over the years is that talent is universal, but opportunity is not. And in many places, opportunity is still out of reach for women, no matter how smart they are, how hard they work, how much encouragement they might be given even by their own families, that it is still a very difficult task.

Read the whole thing. What strikes me about Secretary of State Clinton's speech is not that she is speaking about women, but that the statement is true for all manner of people. It is a recurring theme in my writing -- the world is not fair and those of us lucky enough to have had opportunities in our life should understand how much the luck of the draw has put us in a position to achieve whatever successes we have in our lives.

Speaking for me only

< Chavez: Iran Helping Venezuela Search for Uranium | 3 Gitmo Detainees Sent to Yemen, Ireland >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A Very Important Point (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by blogtopus on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 01:54:58 PM EST
    that is made quite clear in 'Outliers' by Malcolm Gladwell. People are successful for being talented, working hard, AND being in the right place at the right time. The captains of industry who brought themselves up out of poverty all by themselves, often didn't.

    I make it a point to help people out as much as I can, and if they feel bad about the help (indebted, maybe), I just ask them to 'pass it on' instead of feeling like they need to return the favor. That usually brings a smile to their face.

    Interesting interview on NPR's (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 02:03:01 PM EST
    marketplace re microfinance and why it is better to loan the money to a woman than to her husband, whose spending priorities may not center on helping the family.  

    Half the Sky

    We should apply the same principle to banking (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by lambert on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 02:22:30 PM EST
    Maybe if the Masters of the Universe weren't testesterone fuelled, we wouldn't be having the, er, boom/bust cycle.

    Ha ha, only serious. I mean, we've tried everything else, right?


    Greed is not testosterone generated (none / 0) (#16)
    by pluege on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 02:49:59 PM EST
    Testosterone fuels violence. Greed is born of insecurity, which has no gender bias.

    That's not quite true, see this NYT article: (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by steviez314 on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 03:13:22 PM EST
    Trading on Testosterone

    Key last line:

    Perhaps, he told New Scientist, "if more women and older men were trading, the markets would be more stable."

    Success and greed not the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by pluege on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 03:30:07 PM EST
    the Masters of the Universe are greed obsessed skanks that scammed the markets, breaking all enacted and moral rules to hoard wealth for themselves. Testosterone doesn't make that happen; insidious weakness of character and massive insecurity do.

    See also (none / 0) (#62)
    by lambert on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:37:39 PM EST
    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 07:50:47 AM EST
    It's hard to credit an article with a quote like this in it:

    "You meet these bimbos and they say, `Oh, I work at a hedge fund,' and you think, What?!?" says one head of an investment bank who pals around with high net worth investors. "And then you realize, Oh, this is, like, the PR girl. And it's a wildly successful strategy [for some]. The influential rich people who put money into these things like to be titillated by pretty girls."

    Testosterone poisoning, indeed.

    Not only am I not trusting the observations of investment bankers on any subject these days but this demeaning comment echoes too many I've heard, and my friends have heard over the years (and still) from male 'colleagues' who want to project their libidos on us.

    How dare some woman he finds sexy pretend she "works" in a hedge fund for any reason but roping in clients with her wiles?


    women (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 04:15:01 PM EST
    I will certainly agree wthat women are often the ones who will take risks to make their family not fail. When the People's Homesteading Group started in Baltimore it was a core group of women (mothers) who were willing to invest their sweat for a chance to get out of the projects. Their husband only joined in once they saw it was working and they were about to get a house. I'm generalizing but it was the women homesteaders who made the organization.

    I think that's exactly right (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 02:08:20 PM EST
    But it's also a key issue that distinguishes Democrats from Republicans. It is a major reason why affirmative action, progressive taxation,  the social safety net, and public services in general are worth supporting.

    People don't get where they are because they are naturally propelled, or because god put them there. It's all a combination of luck, circumstance, and opportunity.

    Well hard work is a factor (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Faust on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 03:20:48 PM EST
    but it's only one of many. Somehow though, the fiction of "everything I have is because of my hard work and my hard work only" sufficies as infinite justification for social inequality in the minds of far too many.

    Some (none / 0) (#26)
    by Natal on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 04:00:47 PM EST
    would say "luck" is a blessing from almighty nature for past actions in accordance with the laws of nature -- ie for every action there is a reaction.

    "Some people" have no evidence at all (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by andgarden on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 04:11:45 PM EST
    Lets (none / 0) (#30)
    by Natal on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 04:31:14 PM EST
    just call things we don't fully understand plain luck and unavoidable circumstances that we have no control over. We're responsible for our lot in life and it's not the environment or anyone else to blame. And if we don't like the lack of opportunities that have come our way we have the freewill change it.

    Ahhh (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 09:17:57 PM EST
    another social Darwinist comes out of the closet.  Whatsamatter, Fox News on repeats tonight?

    Hillary always does so well speaking (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 02:35:47 PM EST
    on women's issues. You go girl.

    I have always hated groupies and idol worshippers, (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by NYShooter on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 05:26:15 PM EST
    But, when it comes to Hillary, I can't help myself.

    Years ago, during the Clinton Administration, when Hillary-hatred was reaching its Zenith, including from most of those in my office, I found a picture of her on the internet. I downloaded it, printed out an 8 x 10 color portrait. I put it in a frame and placed it on my desk with the caption, "Beautiful, Just Beautiful!"


    I don't consider myself a Hillary groupie (none / 0) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 05:34:34 PM EST
    When any politician does something that I think is commendable I am as vocal in my praise as I am with my criticism when they do something that does not meet my approval.

    IOW, if Hillary had become president and she approached health care in the same manner as Obama, my comments would be the same as they are now.  


    Thanks for the chuckle (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 05:37:52 PM EST
    if Hillary had become president and she approached health care in the same manner as Obama

    OH, MO, (none / 0) (#42)
    by NYShooter on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 05:40:34 PM EST
    It was just a compliment

    I didn't take your comment adversely (none / 0) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:15:06 PM EST
    and I hope you didn't take mine as anything other than stating my own opinion on how I feel about politicians.  Unfortunately, much to my depair, I will never win an award for tact. Sorry if I offended in anyway especially as I always enjoy your comments.

    I'm just not into personality politics. OTOH, I really like women in power advocating for other women. Hillary does an outstanding job on that issue IMO.


    When I was growing up in Russia, (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by NYShooter on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:09:30 PM EST
    ..and two members of our family had exhausted themselves arguing about something so trivial they forgot what it was; we had a way to end it once and for all. We would hook our pinkies together, and then shake them up and down while reciting a certain untranslatable ditty. Under penalty of a horrible death (in a cute way, of course) binging up the subject again was forever forbidden.  

    So MO, consider yourself "pinky'd"



    The Inverse is also true (5.00 / 12) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 03:09:15 PM EST
    the elites, take Bush for example, always have opportunity, but talent seems to be missing.  This is where the center of injustice is, taking that opportunity that is a birthright to the ones in power, and spreading it around.  

    Ahh, the human struggle.  

    Working since he was in kindergarten (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 04:20:19 PM EST
    with a Latino who is now just starting 6th grade in a charter school whose goal is getting low income kids neither of whose parents graduated from a four-year college ready and into four-year colleges.  Would this very bright, self-starting young man have gotten into this school on his own?  Maybe.  But I wasn't willing to sit back and watch.  His parents don't speak English and highest schooling was third grade in Mexico.  

    The arrogance of wealth: (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by pluege on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 05:00:49 PM EST
    having wealth makes people think:

    a) they did something to deserve it (which is often not the case), and

    b) that they are superior to those who don't have wealth by the mere fact of having wealth, when more often than not their moral character is seriously mangled, distorted, or completely nonexistent.

    I get a kick out of all the wealthy pious folk sitting holier than thou in church blithely ignoring:

    'it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for any of them to get into heaven.'

    What a completely bigoted statement. (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 01:18:39 AM EST
    Is "bigoted" the correct word? (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 01:20:30 AM EST
    A generalization w/o support and ignoring many who practice Christianity in a Christian manner.

    Dunno. Seems right to me. (none / 0) (#84)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 01:30:40 AM EST
    A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who regards or treats members of a group (e.g. a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.[1]

    She's pretty clearly prejudiced against and intolerant of people who have wealth.

    What if she wrote:

    The arrogance of Japanese people:

    being Japanese makes people think:
    a) they did something to deserve it (which is often not the case), and

    b) that they are superior to those who aren't Japanese by the mere fact of being Japanese, when more often than not Japanese people's moral character is seriously mangled, distorted, or completely nonexistent.

    Or whatever.

    class is different (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by lilburro on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 03:44:46 AM EST
    than race or gender.  

    I was more taken with the gratuitous (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 01:39:55 AM EST
    swipe at anyone who darkens the door of a Christian church.

    plueges are like onions. (none / 0) (#86)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 01:48:16 AM EST
    They have layers.

    Googled "plueges" but got (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 01:52:40 AM EST
    inquiry:  do you mean "plagues"?

    Sorry, it's late. It's time for bed. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 01:57:06 AM EST
    The arrogance of wealth: (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by pluege on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 02:00:49 PM PST

    having wealth makes people think:

    And from Shrek:
    1. Ogres are like onions.

    1. They stink?

    2. Yes, no.

    3. Oh they make you cry? You leave em out in the sun and they start sprouting little white hairs?

    4. No, ogres have layers, onions have layers.

    5. Oh you both have layers. You know not everyone likes onions...cakes everyone likes cakes, cakes have layers.

    6. I dont care what everyone likes, ogres are not like cakes.

    7. You know what else evrybody likes? Parfait, you go up to someone and say you wanna get some parfait and they so hell no i dont like parfait? Parfaits are delicious!

    8. No you minuature beast of vermin! Ogres are like onions, end of story! Bye-bye. See you later.

    By 2000 (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Pacific John on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 05:31:44 PM EST
    poverty rates were at historic lows:

    Except for Whites, the 1999 poverty rates for the nation's major racial and ethnic groups set or equaled historic lows. The rate for African Americans, 23.6 percent, was the lowest ever measured by the Census Bureau, and about 700,000 fewer African Americans were poor in 1999 (8.4 million) than in 1998 (9.1 million).

    This is a case where real world results trump the unattractive nature or an impure process.

    I'll leave the inside baseball associated with holding back a GOP Congress and the last wave of the Southern Strategy to others, but I can say that we had our hands full out-maneuvering the damage intended by movement conservatives. In 1994, CA, one of our most liberal states, voted overwhelmingly to (essentially) kick Hispanic kids out of school, and for Three Strikes, whose first victim stole a slice of pizza. Unlike more recent profiles in cowardice, the Clintons came to CA to campaign against Prop 187, despite a significant political penalty.

    I haven't really had time today to focus (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 11:18:03 PM EST
    fully on much of anything, but I do have to say a couple things about Hillary and her speech.

    First, after many years of feeling kind of lukewarm about her, last year's primary changed my mind, and I saw just how valuable this woman is.

    Second, she continues to be, for me, one of the smartest people in the public eye, but beyond being smart, she is able, like her husband, to express what she knows in ways ordinary people can relate to - in ways that show people they can make a difference.

    There's a part of me that just wants to weep when I listen to her and think about what she could have brought to the presidency, to health care, to human and civil rights; it's actually painful to think about.  That being said, I'm glad she has a position from which to give speeches like this, and I know she will continue to make a difference in people's lives.

    But, oh, what could have been...

    How true (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by lynnerkat on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 12:56:55 AM EST
    Thanks Anne- I see Hillary as you do. Breaks my heart that we are where we are. I always find your comments mirroring my thoughts.

    i would hate to meet her one day (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 04:17:32 AM EST
    and confess to her that i supported the guy not because i thought the guy was any different but because, while i wrote it about a lot and said it was wrong, i still succumbed to a media love for the guy.

    that would suck if that was me.

    On Medicare (4.60 / 10) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:53:36 PM EST
    Clinton said "Millions of Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 have lost their health insurance. Some are retired, some are laid off, some lose their coverage when their spouses retire. After a lifetime of work, they are left with nowhere to turn. So I ask the Congress, let these hard-working Americans buy into the Medicare system. It will not add a dime to the deficit, but the peace of mind it will provide will be priceless."

    Destroy Medicare? He stood up to Gingrich when he shut down the government in order to save Medicare.

    But liars do not care about the facts.

    You beat me (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Pacific John on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:54:50 PM EST
    by 30 seconds.

    On Social Security (4.33 / 6) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:56:30 PM EST
    " Now, if we balance the budget for next year, it is projected that we will then have a sizable surplus in the years that immediately follow. What should we do with this projected surplus? I have a simple, four-word answer: save Social Security first.

    Tonight I propose that we reserve 100 percent of the surplus, that is every penny of any surplus, until we have taken all the necessary measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the 21st century. Let us say, let us say to all Americans watching tonight, whether you are 70 or 50 or whether you just started paying into the system, Social Security will be there when you need it.

    Let us make this commitment: Social Security first. Let's do that together."

    But liars do not care about facts.

    And what about the not-so-talented? (1.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Jacob Freeze on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 02:02:15 PM EST
    But I almost forgot...

    The Clintons never cared about them, and if you aren't a future Prime Minister, Secretary of State, or Senator, you aren't even a blip on their radar.

    I am so sick of hearing the Clintons talk about opportunities for the "natural aristocracy, which does not include almost everybody in the world!

    Don't understand your comment (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 02:07:44 PM EST
    on 2 levels.

    First, Neither Clinton was the part of a natural aristocracy, but of course being white (and in Bill's case a white man) gave them advantages over others (while being at a disadvantage to others, the wealthy, connected, etc.).

    Second, in terms of providing opportunities for "almost everybody in the world" - this seems a strange complaint to make about the Clintons, given Hillary's focus on womens' rights around the world and Bill's focus with his Global Initiative.

    It strikes me as typical Clinton Derangement Syndrome. I have long been sick of that.


    A couple of years ago, Bill Clinton (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by JDM in NYC on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 02:24:49 PM EST
    was on the Daily Show, discussing his foundation's work, and how surprising improvements can be made to people's lives for very little outlay. One example he used was a program to distribute reading glasses in Africa. Having reached the age where I need reading glasses, I was very aware of how much less functional I would be without access to them. He didn't mention any sort of "natural aristocracy" test to determine eligibility for the reading glasses.

    Here is the difference between the conservative approach and Clinton's:

    Conservative "A rising tide lifts all boats."
    Clinton: "A rising tide lifts all boats, so let's make sure everybody has a boat."


    The other funny thing about your comment (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by JDM in NYC on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 02:30:55 PM EST
    is that during the primary, Obama was presented as the candidate of the "Creative Class," who was going to rescue the Democrats from the "Bubbas."

    Funny thing (4.85 / 20) (#33)
    by Pacific John on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 04:42:12 PM EST
    (or not so) about that. Obama ran on requiring public service for low income kids on Pell Grants and expansion of onerous, expensive standardized testing, he opposed early discussions of economic stimulus, and ran pro-insurance Harry and Louise ads. He took in record-breaking pro-corporate cash. He or his campaign called working class voters "bitter," clingy, and "Bunkers." Non-AA working class voters, ignorant rubs that they are, then mysteriously voted against Obama in the primary by about 70/30.

    I spent the campaign in two cities, El Paso and Eugene. I have never seen better informed voters than I did in El Paso - voters would go into detail about the policies they supported and why their candidate was best. In Eugene, home to U of O, and Obama's core demographic, I did not run into one, not one, Obama organizer or voter who knew what either candidate stood for, although for some reason they felt compelled to prod people in Hillary shirts on the street to find out what was wrong with us.

    In my though experiment, I wondered what would happen if the faith-based Oregon voters had to debate policy with the presumably ignorant, poor, uneducated Hispanics along the Rio Grande.

    My snarky observation is that the creative class will write tear-drenched diaries about North American indigenous farmers until they become citizens and have the audacity to vote for a mildly populist candidate. Then, such working class voters are assumed to deserve pity for not being as smart as the educated elites, and treated as invisible in the debate.

    This party should again represent the views of working people and embrace people like Dolores Huerta and the new working class voters in the sunbelt. That's what I'm working for.


    Good post, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by NYShooter on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 05:33:32 PM EST
    Thank you.

    I wish you'd consider... (none / 0) (#64)
    by lambert on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:43:00 PM EST
    .... doing some guest posts over at my place, Pacific John. We'd like to hear about that. And El Paso reminds me of this little incident...

    Really great post (none / 0) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 09:15:57 PM EST
    Thank you.

    Niever, ever heard either of them (none / 0) (#54)
    by sallywally on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:59:23 PM EST
    say that. Maybe right wing radio/tv talking points?

    Is it possible to (none / 0) (#13)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 02:36:40 PM EST
    work hard and make your own opportunity?  

    I've yet to hear a real "pulled myself (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 02:44:55 PM EST
    up by my bootstraps" story where the individual was not helped and encouraged by others in their endeavor to reach their goals.



    So why should anyone (none / 0) (#15)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 02:48:47 PM EST
    work?  Why not just sit on the sidelines and wait for someone else to do work for them?  

    Reading comprehension is (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 02:51:27 PM EST
    evidently not one of your strong suits.

    Cancel FEMA! Build your own damn roads! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 02:52:32 PM EST
    Fema builds roads? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 02:57:30 PM EST

    That's called... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by lambert on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:43:32 PM EST
    ... being a bankster!

    Or, more precisely, a rentier.


    No (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Steve M on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 03:02:42 PM EST
    It is, by definition, not possible to make your own opportunity.

    It's definitely (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 04:55:03 PM EST
     possible.  And in fact, many people are much more successful because they worked hard.  However, many people work excruciatingly hard, struggle greatly, and never make it out of their caste.

    And, pre-existing opportunity is frequently negated in those who have it.  The phrase "born on third base and thinks he scored a triple" comes to mind.  Simple things like decent parents, 3 square meals a day and some insistence that you attend school are a huge leg up compared with someone who doesn't have those things.  And many people take those things for granted.

    Yes, Bill Gates built his empire from the ground up.  However, if Gates had been a son of a Somali villager, rather than the child of a prestigious lawyer father (Bill, Sr) and a mother who was a friend of the board of directors at IBM (Mary), then we'd be suffering through some other operating system, rather than Windows.

    Hard work typically nowhere near matches the benefits of opportunity.

    Anyway, you get my drift.


    is this a case in point for you? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 02:51:25 PM EST
    that you would show to people?  That it is not hard work but connections that gets everybody by.  Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan

    Fair or not it comes down to (none / 0) (#43)
    by SOS on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 05:47:16 PM EST
    people who are trying to decide if they grill steak or salmon for tonight's dinner while Americans are being tossed out into the streets daily facing destitution.

    We all have excuses that's obvious.

    Go ahead and try (none / 0) (#44)
    by SOS on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 05:50:27 PM EST
    "pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps", try that sometime in this economy and see what happens.

    When you think about what would happen (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Spamlet on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:04:19 PM EST
    if you tried to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, you quickly see that you would fall repeatedly on your @ss--unless somebody caught you. So I wonder if that expression was originally a joke that over time came to be misunderstood, kind of like "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is sometimes taken nowadays as a recommendation instead of a warning.

    There may be another explanation (none / 0) (#56)
    by sallywally on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:14:57 PM EST
    for this, but yours makes sense to me!

    Check out the pic (none / 0) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:22:31 PM EST
    "beautiful, just beautiful"


    She looks like she is having a great time (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:31:39 PM EST
    Great photo.

    It's a keeper (none / 0) (#59)
    by Pacific John on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:28:55 PM EST
    Open thread people (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:34:29 PM EST
    BTW (none / 0) (#58)
    by NYShooter on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:27:06 PM EST
    Who's that with Posada?


    Just asking.... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by NYShooter on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:37:40 PM EST
    Hillary: "Talent is Universal, Opportunity Is Not"

    So why would acknowledging Justice Sotomayor require an open thread?


    Afghanistan (none / 0) (#66)
    by Manuel on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 09:03:36 PM EST
    A focus of women is part of what makes abandoning Afghanistan to the Taliban a problem for me.  Scott Simon had a good editorial about it on NPR today.

    Yes. Is it a good enough reason (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by oldpro on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 10:17:18 PM EST
    to stay?

    Perhaps.  It depends on the price and who is willing to pay it.


    In an ideal world (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Manuel on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 10:41:33 PM EST
    It would not be led by the US and NATO.  It would be led by the UN.  However, after years of anti UN talk and actions, I don't hold much hope that the US can help transform the UN into an effective organization for world peace.

    It is a recurring theme in my writing (none / 0) (#81)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 01:16:06 AM EST
    It is a recurring theme in my writing -- the world is not fair and those of us lucky enough to have had opportunities in our life should understand how much the luck of the draw has put us in a position to achieve whatever successes we have in our lives.
    Oddly enough, no matter how little opportunity you think you have had, there are many - many - others who have had less than you.

    Everyone should understand how much the luck of the draw has put them in a position to achieve whatever successes they have in their lives.

    iow, just like there's always someone [many someones] richer, better looking, better married, better opportunitied, etc., than YOU, there is also someone [many someones] less wealthy, less good-looking, worse married, worse oportunitied, etc., than YOU.

    Therefore, instead of spending your life bitter about everyone else's opportunities & successes and demanding that they give YOU your undeniably and in-arguably well-deserved props, try spending it doing exactly what BTD suggests - ie., understanding how lucky YOU have been. That many people are much worse off than you. Look to give THEM a hand up, and not spend your days expecting others to give you the dues you feel they they owe you.

    The former sounds more selfish to me, the latter more selfless.

    Boy, wouldn't the world be a better place with more selfless people...

    Excellent points (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 08:30:15 AM EST
    And isn't the question....which system of governance gives the individual the best chance?

    BTW (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 09:47:57 AM EST
    My ridiculous dustup with Clinton Hater Jacobn Freeze is Exhibit A for not letting threads go off topic.

    I will be very vigilant about that in the future and suspend myself from commenting today for my lapse.

    I am also closing the comments in this thread.

    lilburro, not when it comes to bigotry (none / 0) (#104)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 10:09:06 AM EST
    against someone for their "class."

    Hillary is the test case (none / 0) (#105)
    by diogenes on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 02:53:49 PM EST
    Not many talented women have the opportunity to have been married to the president of the United States, thus opening the door to a safe senate seat from New York and to an appointment as Secretary of State.  

    this thread got way out of hand (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:23:38 AM EST
    BTD is away for the evening and I have cleaned the thread as best I can of name-calling and personal attacks. If your comment got deleted in the scuffle, sorry.

    Comments here are closed.