Snapshot Chronicles

Susan Getgood's personal blog

  • Home
  • About Snapshot Chronicles
  • Privacy & Disclosure
    • Cookie Policy
  • Getgood.Com

Election Notebook (2016): Hillary at the Apollo, Trump’s abortion remarks and Maddow rocks the house

03.31.2016 by Susan Getgood //

Since last Fall, I have become increasingly active on Facebook about the 2016 election. First, speaking out about Donald Trump, and my horror that anyone could consider him a suitable candidate for president. Sadly, we have more than enough proof that he may be a viable one.

Then I realized I also needed to start talking about who I do support in the presidential election — with utmost confidence in her record, qualifications and ability to lead our country, Hillary Rodham Cllnton.

Slowly my Facebook posts have shifted to be largely political commentaries on the candidates and the election. Mostly focused on why #imwithher and #nevertrump. Of late I’ve also become increasingly critical of Senator Sanders’ campaign, which has surfaced a few critics of ME, no surprise. I also changed my Facebook profile to announce — with pride — that I will be voting for Secretary Clinton for president.

Today though I decided it was time to take my commentary back to my own blog. I’ve got more to say than can be encapsulated short Facebook posts, and this poor little blog has sat neglected for far too long anyway.

Why today? Because yesterday was a tipping point in this election. I want my thoughts all in one place. Let’s run it down.

Hillary Clinton at the Apollo

Hillary Clinton delivered an excellent speech at a campaign rally at the Apollo Theater in Harlem. The content was on point, for both the local and national audience, and she was in a word, presidential. It was everything that her supporters expect to hear from her, that her opponents fear to hear from her, and I hope, that the undecided truly listen to. Watch it for yourself (below) but listen especially for the 3 points she calls for all the candidates in the election to address:

  • the well-being of the American people. All the people
  • the safety of our nation
  • making our country whole again

When you listen to campaign speeches, measure the candidates against these 3 critical things. In my opinion, and to date this year, the opinion of nearly 9 million others, Secretary Clinton is the only candidate across both parties who can deliver on all three.

She inspires me with her passion for our country, its people and her desire to serve us. All of us. #imwithher. And I trust her.

[Video no longer available]

More coverage of the speech:
The New Yorker
New York Times

Donald Trump Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot to Ankle

Donald Trump made what has to be his most ignorant statement to date in a Town Hall interview with Chris Matthews. When pressed by Matthews, Trump said that if the abortion were banned, women who get abortions should be punished. Not the men involved. Just the women.

How outrageous was the statement? So bad that Trump did something he hardly ever does with his outrageous statements — he walked it back almost immediately to the more toned down idea that the doctors involved should be punished. You can read the summary here.

What he didn’t take back, and in fact NONE of the Republicans will, is a commitment to overturn Roe v. Wade. They all want to take away a woman’s right to choose, to make abortion illegal. The other candidates just don’t have foot in mouth disease to the same degree as Mr. Trump. They may not say it, but they kinda want to punish women too.

To the undecided voter:

The consequences of the GOP policy on reproductive rights fall disproportionately on women, especially women with lower economic status. Who is guaranteed to not really suffer in the GOP scenario? Unless you are a principled OB-GYN, white men. Is this the America you want? Remember — abortion rights don’t force anyone to have an abortion, they just give everyone the right to make a choice. If your religion prohibits you from considering the option, fair enough, but in the United States, a founding principle is the separation of church and state. We cannot pass laws that force belief systems upon others. It is the law.

Cruz and Kasich and Ryan and Romney and all the rest of the crew? They’d ban abortion too, given the chance. Stopping this, stopping them is one of the most important issues at stake in this election. It speaks directly to the well-being of the American people and is a large part of why current races for Senate and the House are so crucial. We need to make Congress more blue. Secretary Clinton understands this at the most fundamental level, which is why she deploys her considerable fundraising muscle not just for her own campaign, but also for the benefit of the down ticket Democrats.

Rachel Maddow Rocks the House

Rachel Maddow conducted illuminating exclusive interviews with both Democratic candidates yesterday. Secretary Clinton in person following the Harlem speech, and Senator Sanders by video feed.

While much has been said about the similarities between the two platforms, the two candidates are very different people, with different qualifications, experience and priorities. One of the reasons I support Secretary Clinton for president is that I believe in both her plan to get things done, and her ability to make it happen. I appreciate some of Senator Sanders ideas, but do not have the same confidence in him, and these two interviews solidified some of the reasons why.

Maddow had hard questions for both. To her credit, she didn’t repeat old questions that both candidates have asked and answered. She used her time wisely to ask about the way forward.

If you are a diehard Sanders supporter, you will likely not agree with my take. That is indeed your right and privilege. For those of you undecided, go ahead and watch the clips first if you want, and then come back for my POV.

Here’s the first Clinton clip, and just follow on from there on MSNBC to watch the other interview clips:

[Video no longer available transcript.]

Here’s the first Sanders clip, same instructions:

[Video no longer available. transcript.]

Secretary Clinton really shined. She looked and acted presidential. Some of the highlights:

  • Her respect for the primary system and electoral process
  • Her take on the GOP, especially how Trump is just a more extreme representative of the positions of the party — in fact, a product of the GOP machine (if a little more unpredictable than the party leaders would like). She explained that her sharper criticisms of the GOP candidates were not a pivot away from the primaries, but stem from her need to respond to the poisoned environment they are creating sooner rather than later.
  • The importance of supporting the down ticket races to turn Congress more blue so the progressive agenda can actually be carried out, not blocked by an obstructionist Congress.
  • Strong support for President Obama on the Merrick Garland nomination. I love the “one president at a time” comment.
  • Good answer to the the hard question about the Clinton Foundation donors. Rather than shutter the Foundation during the election (and presumably her presidency), she wants the Foundation to to be able to continue its good work, in full daylight and full transparency.

Sanders did not fare as well. Maddow pressed him hard on a number of process issues that have been in the news of late. He was visibly irritated at the questions, and honestly didn’t give such great answers.

  • On the super delegates, he acknowledged that he intends to lobby super delegates to switch their votes, even if Secretary Clinton is ahead in the popular vote and pledged delegates
  • On his campaign claims that they just didn’t spend any money in those states where they lost, where Maddow herself has proof that this isn’t true, he wiggled and waffled, and ended up throwing his staffers under the bus.
  • On whether he would fundraise for the down ticket races, he gave a resounding “we’ll see.” Translation: probably not.

I know many people love him to distraction, and are ready to march in Bernie’s Revolution. The question is, what is the actual plan, and can he get anything done? He’s not helping the party he’s “borrowed” to run for president. In fact, it sort of feels like he’s just helping himself.

For another take on the differences that emerged during the two interviews, read Steve Benen’s post on the TheMaddowBlog.

And then there were the candidates’ responses to Trump’s abortion remarks.

Clinton takes Trump, and the anger he is fomenting, very seriously. She has said before that we need to address the root cause for why his message resonates with his supporters, and in her speech, she addressed some of his very dangerous ideas directly.

She reiterated these sentiments in her comments to Maddow about the Trump remarks, making it clear that women’s rights, including abortion rights, are an essential part of her platform. They cannot be ignored or relegated to second spot. This is one of the things that I appreciate about her. She has always worked to achieve economic and social equality for women, knowing that it is fundamental to achieving progressive goals as well as retaining the ground we’ve already won. Like Roe v. Wade.

She says it better than I do though, so here’s the clip from the Maddow show, which includes the Trump/Matthews “conversation” and Secretary Clinton’s statement: [Video no longer available]

Sanders, on the other hand, just does not get how important the abortion rights issue is. To women, and to the progressive agenda overall. While we know he supports a woman’s right to choose, and he said so very clearly, he dismissed Trump’s comments as more of the same old outrageous, and pivoted immediately back to his usual talking points. Don’t get me wrong — the things he is angry about are important. But they aren’t the only issues at stake, and for some of us, they may not even be the most critical issues. If we have to pick. Dismissing Trump’s comments dismisses the danger of the underlying GOP philosophy behind them.

Bottom line, he showed how tone-deaf he is to women’s issues. That matters to me. A lot.

Here’s the clip:[Video no longer available]

Abortion rights is a pivotal issue for me, and many voters. Male and female alike. No one — not a friend, not a Facebook troll, not a candidate — has the right to dismiss your issue as less important than others. Whatever your do or die issue is — the tie breaker, your go-to-the-mat issue — it is your absolute right to make your ultimate voting decision based on that issue.

Senator Sanders dismissed one of my core issues as less important in his comments yesterday. Secretary Clinton, on the other hand, made it crystal clear how important and fundamental she considers woman’s rights, including the right to choose.

Clinton gets it. All the issues are important, and we have to make progress on the WHOLE Democratic agenda. Not just one piece.

I was voting for her anyway. Today, I am even more certain that she is the right choice for the United States.

And if you want to call that voting with my vagina? Well, it’s way easier to use the ballot or the voting machine, but I’ll see what I can figure out by election day.

Categories // Election 16, Politics

The December 2013 Bigot Olympics

12.24.2013 by Susan Getgood //

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any weirder, we have the December 2013 Bigot Olympics.

Granted, there were other notable examples of racism, sexism and homophobia in the news over the year, not the least of which was the verdict in the killing of Trayvon Martin.

But December was truly the lightning round, with three stupendous examples of bigotry for our consideration:

  • “Reporters” at Faux News debate Santa’s race, positing that, despite evidence to the contrary, Santa must be a white dude;
  • A minor celebrity from an odd (and oddly successful) reality show about a family business, in which many of the adult males resemble ZZ Top (but without the humor, and quite possibly, talent), goes on the record with his racism and homophobia;
  • A PR professional tweets a racist comment just prior to boarding a long flight to South Africa, setting off a Twitter-storm of reaction, immediate response from her employer and ultimately, termination of her employment.

Hard to pick a “winner” here. At first glance, it would seem the PR person and her clueless use of Twitter is the hands-down choice. Racist, check. Cultural ignorance, check. Professional suicide, check. Now perhaps the effects on her career are short term, as Peter Shankman argues on Facebook but still…

But I have to give Justine Sacco the Bronze Medal. Yes, from all the evidence, she is racist, but the thing thing about racism or any prejudice? Bigots don’t know they *are* racist or homophobic or sexist or xenophobic. If they understood it, they wouldn’t say and do the stupid, awful, damaging things they do. Apart from sociopaths, most folks, if we know it is wrong, we don’t do it.

That’s what makes the whole damn thing so sad and dangerous, and how people can say with a straight face, “But some of my best friends are _______,” and not understand how pathetic and wrong they are.

Sad that we (collectively) have to point it out to her, but I am holding out hope for Justine now that her own racism has been outed in such a BIG way. Third Place.

Next up, Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty. Racist and homophobic though he may be, and irritated as I am that he has a platform to spread his views, I also have to admit to not being terribly surprised that he has these opinions. Perhaps that is my prejudice showing, but so be it. Phil edges Justine in my rankings  because I just don’t see him apologizing or retracting. Ever. In fact, he seems to be wearing his bigotry with pride.

It was funny when it was Archie Bunker, a fictional character whose purpose was to shine the light on prejudice. Not so much 30 years later. The good news is that sooner or later Phil and his family, and their influence, will fade like the echo of a duck call, so the long term damage of his hateful speech is minimal. He just won’t be relevant. For many of us, he is already irrelevant, and his only purpose is a good excuse to engage in the conversation about equality. [Side Note: For those that disagree with my assessment of Phil, please understand that I am simply exercising my right to free speech. Consequences included.]

That’s why the “top” place has to go to Fox News and its coverage of the holiday season — the “War on Christmas“(since 2004!) and NEW! this year,  the debate on Santa’s race. As a (sadly) leading “news” network, it has a long-term influence that it continues to abuse with faux stories like these. Here are two clips from The Daily Show,  the original Daily Show piece on Megyn Kelly’s “Santa is White” piece and the following week’s “explanation” by Kelly:

 

Pretty funny. Except not.

While there are many of us who disagree, Fox News is considered a legitimate news organization. Its militant bible thumping and rampant racism legitimize a cultural norm that accepts racism and elitism, and contribute to an environment in which people think it’s okay to gay bash and jurors can acquit a white dude for murdering a black teen without provocation.

So, forget about December 2013. Fox News probably belongs in the Bigot’s Hall of Shame.

What can you do? Well for immediate relief, watch Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Rachel Maddow.

Live equality. Show the people around you, and especially your kids, that equality isn’t just a belief,  it’s a fundamental part of your soul.  

Speak up. Keep talking about prejudice. It’s not  an easy conversation, whether you are talking with a friend or loved one, or simply doing some soul searching. If you don’t face your own biases, you can’t overcome them. Remember the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller: 

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

Peace and love to everyone.

And to all a good night.

—

Related articles
  • The (Race) War on Christmas: Megyn Kelly Declares ‘Santa Claus Just Is White’ and So Was Jesus
  • Dear Christians: Please Quit Idolizing Disgusting Hate-Filled Bigots.
  • Don’t be a holly jolly racist: Santa can be any color
  • Megyn Kelly: Santa is white
  • Daily Show’s Jon Stewart slams Fox News’ Megyn Kelly for ‘White Christmas’
  • Duck Dynasty Fans Are Sending Me Ridiculous Hate Mail
Enhanced by Zemanta

Categories // In the News, Memes, Politics

Lean in, tip over: Thoughts on Marissa Mayer and Sheryl Sandberg

02.27.2013 by Susan Getgood //

Over the past week, I’ve been chatting with a number of my Facebook friends about what many are calling the most recent salvos at the good ship Working Mother. Specifically Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer’s recent edict  requiring Yahoo! employees to work in a Yahoo! office, effectively rescinding flexible working arrangements and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s new book (and philosophy),  Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead. 

There’s no shortage of opinions about these endeavors, many of which call both women to task for ignoring the daily realities facing most working women in this country. True enough. I agree.

When viewed through a feminist lens, it’s hard to miss that Mayer’s edict about flextime is bound to have the most impact on working mothers and two-income families,  traditionally the chief beneficiaries of flexible working arrangements. And when it comes to Sandberg’s Lean In philosophy, while I will refrain from extensive commentary until I have read the book, so far it reminds me of “why can’t a woman be more like a man,” but with less singing and no Rex Harrison.

A chief criticism of both women is that they operate from positions of privilege and are insulated from the realities facing the working population that can’t afford nannies and housekeepers while we go to the office every day and lean all the way in.

True enough perhaps, but that’s not my only criticism of both the Yahoo! policy shift and the Lean In philosophy. I don’t care that these two women have more money and household support. The argument that they are out of touch is the easy one. We cannot lay the entire burden of the deeper social issues at their doors. Mayer and Sandberg are just as much as product of our societal psychosis when it comes to women in the workplace as the rest of us, so let’s not demonize them. Too much anyway 🙂

Yes. It is sad that these two extremely successful women are so out of touch,  and it truly concerns me that the younger generation has begun to reject the mantle of  “feminism,” virtually ignoring the corporate ladders that previous generations scrabbled up against impossible odds.

But I’m a realist.

I’d like to see successful women like them  “pull up” as well as “lean in.”  It is something I have always tried to do in my own career, and when I rejoined the corporate workforce after a 6 year stint as an independent consultant, I chose BlogHer, a woman-led organization that values both work and family.

But I don’t expect it. Sadly, our society rewards the traditional “masculine” values and denigrates the “feminine” ones.  Until we change our social values at a fundamental level, there will always be Queen Bees. And finance will trump family.

So I am going to set aside the “rich women out of touch” argument, and get right to my deeper issues with Mayer’s Yahoo! edict and Sandberg’s Lean In platform.

Let’s take them in turn.

First the Yahoo! shift. As I’ve commented elsewhere, I understand the argument that the change was a business decision that will impact both men and women employees, and was driven by a need to effect immediate and deep change in the Yahoo! culture to turn things around. Mayer has a productivity problem. We get it.

Unfortunately,  the way the policy change was framed  — that people are more productive face to face — flies in the face of data that supports flexible working arrangements, ignores the reality of the modern tech workplace and is fundamentally dishonest. (Snarky aside: Not that I advocate this, but many companies outsource their tech support to India. Where’s the face to face in that?)

Bottom line, and I am sure Mayer respects the bottom line, put on the big girl panties and acknowledge that Yahoo! has a problem.  Working from home or allowing flexible working arrangements doesn’t have to be — shouldn’t be in this connected era — an issue. If it is in YOUR company, suck it up and handle it. Don’t cast aspersions on the model just cause it ain’t workin’ for you. Tell the truth. Do you really think the market doesn’t know?

And by the way, and for what it’s worth, I totally buy into the need for facetime. When I took the job at BlogHer, I relocated to be within commuting distance of our NY Office. But I report there three days a week and work from home two, because I can be more productive on certain projects on my WFH days while also being a little more available to my family.

Next, the whole “Lean In” philosophy. I’m mostly flabbergasted. I am trying – really trying – to refrain from too much commentary before I have read the book . On its face though… REALLY?   I have to tell you, there were times in my corporate career that I leaned so far in I thought I would tip over.

That the onus is always on women to prove themselves irritates me. Deeply. And see above, probably leads to half-assed decrees like the Yahoo! one.

Here’s the thing. Business as structured in these United States values ROI, the bottom line and a whole host of business metrics that matter. They do. They matter.

Just not more than people. And that’s the problem with Lean In and business in general, I suppose.

People matter. And when one woman corporate executive leans in, she probably does it on someone’s back. A partner. A family member. A  nanny. A housekeeper.

Lean in baby, but remember — you are leaning on someone too.

And it cannot, must not be about women doing more, giving more, just to be on par. That’s crap from the get-go.

What we really need is equality.

In the workplace, so we earn the same wage.

And at home, so Dad is just as revered as Mom, and not just in June. Because — guess what — I’d give up the easy laughs if we could close the wage gap.

Balance and equality are I suspect what Sandberg’s model is missing. But as I said, I reserve judgment until I have read the book.

Why can’t a woman be more like a man?

Because.

Just.  Because.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Categories // Feminism, Politics

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 6
  • Next Page »

Travel Posts

chicken and waffles with egg and syrup

Where to go, what to eat when in Philadelphia with kids

Spring has sprung, and I’m out and about

More Posts from this Category

Recipes

Coconut Custard Pie

It’s been a while — a LONG while, but I’m ready to start blogging again. Starting with some original recipes I created as part of a Monthly Baking Class I just took — Baking with Christina Tosi of Milk Bar fame I created this pie to evoke the memory of a Coconut Custard Pie I […]

Potato Galette Recipe

On today’s menu, Potato Galette. Super easy. All you need for 4 generous servings: 2 large potatoes, olive oil, salt and shredded cheese of your choice. Slice the potatoes very thin. I use a mandoline. Toss with olive oil and salt, some herbs if you wish, and then layer in a pie plate, alternating a […]

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

More Posts from this Category

Search

Posts

  • Where to go, what to eat when in Philadelphia with kids
  • Coconut Custard Pie
  • To Cash
  • Election Notebook (2016): Hillary at the Apollo, Trump’s abortion remarks and Maddow rocks the house
  • Childhood Hunger in America: What you can do to help

Archive

Social

  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Copyright © 2023 · Modern Studio Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}