You Can Change the World

Ms. Fulton makes a timely and thoughtful monologue about the changing shape of philanthropy.

In my mind it offers hope and re-frames how I approach giving - personally and professionally. The damaged economy and severe unemployment numbers are unsettling to many of us. However, this time period also provides us a potential clean slate, great learning opportunities, and a chance to explore new ways of sharing and interacting-not just in our backyards but globally.

Each of us have resources, tools, and skills gained from our individual experiences. What amazing changes we could make by collaborating. I think we need to remember that philanthropy is not limited by one's giving capacity; rather from our personal barriers of doubting that our contributions could truly make an impact.

I want to seek out opportunities to connect, not just with my colleagues and contemporaries, also the next generation of philanthropy.

Let me know if you're interested too.

Posted by Lisa Miller, WRC Executive Director

Rachel Maddow to Appear on this Sunday's Meet the Press!

For those of you who may not be familiar with Rachel Maddow, one of the newer additions to MSNBC, she is, quite frankly in my opinion, the Bomb!  Her show is on at 9:00PM eastern time.  I try to catch it as often as I can.

Cable news for me is a sea of infotainment run amok, with so much pandering to individual segments of society that it's hard to know if one is really getting the news, or just some editorializing slant of it.

Enter Rachel, and for now at least, she seems to be trying to get at facts more than anyone else. While she leans progressive, I have seen her have some pretty right wing pundits and elected officials on and, not only does she treat them with respect, she asks some pretty pointed questions and gives her interviewees time to give in-depth answers.  Some, as in the case of Pat Buchanan, use that time to announce not only that they are racist but just how racist they are, but all get respect.  She also covers stories I see no one else covering.

I wonder if she will address Mr. Armey about his organization, Freedomworks and its alleged inciting of the raucus behavior at town hall meetings that Rachel has been covering.  I wonder if she will confront him and if he will just deny it, as he has up to this point.  Don't get me wrong, I am all for debate, however loud and passionate, and civil disagreement is very healthy.  But all I have seen so far in the video of these town hall meetings is tantrum throwing with no substantive questions or comments.  Screaming "liar!" at our representatives is not, in my opinion, healthy debate and certainly won't help anyone understand the complexity of the healthcare reform bills.  People are worried about how we will pay for health care reform, how it will affect all of us, will it work, what if it doesn't - these are among many reasonable and important questions to be answered.

Meet the Press airs on NBC at 9:00 AM eastern time every Sunday.  It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.  If you watch it, let us know what you think.

Posted by Kate Tinnan, WRC volunteer

The Wise Latina...

I have been working on a post regarding the confirmation hearing of Justice Sonya Sotomayor since watching the hearings and reading different viewpoints about the proceedings. Something about the hearings stuck in my craw but I have had trouble articulating just what it is as I have a penchant for backing up my opinions with fact or at least, complimentary opinion from an authoritative source.

Well, now I have it. Below is a short video that Lisa Miller, the WRC Executive Director, posted on Facebook regarding racism and the Sotomayor hearings.

This video does not directly address the sexism issue but the theories proposed here of the difference between systematic racism versus that of reverse racism could be applied to sexism.

As I listened to Mr. Keleher describe the difference I began to cultivate a theory of my own - see what you think of it.

Sexism, racism and other forms of discrimination are worse when they are accompanined by a threat of harm, and by that threat coming from one group's disctinct advantage over another. Justice Sotomayor was not threatening anyone when she made her comments to the students at Berkeley University; indeed she was inspiring them to believe that their perspective and life experiences would enrich all of us if they apply themselves to their learning and excel. I have no doubt that senators Sessions from Alabama and Graham from South Carolina believe that their background, perspectives and beliefs help them bring unique talents to their jobs.

Why shouldn't Justice Sotomayor think the same about herself? Why shouldn't she hold herself and her heritage in high regard? Haven't white men demonstrated this trait, with the muscle to impose it, for centuries? Justice Sotomayor was not suggesting a coup d'etat, Latina women taking over the country to dictate our every move. I think she was suggesting that it's time for more voices and perspectives to come to the table when viewing complex questions of how the constitution is applied to cases before the court. There are some things that I may do better than my husband, and some of those things may be because I am a woman - doesn't make me sexist to think that, just makes me aware of my strengths and proud of them. He does some things better than I do, at least in part due to his gender. He is not sexist because he knows that. He brings those talents to our family to enrich it. It's only if either one of us tried to dominate or oppress the family with our abilities, to deny the abilities and contributions of the other gender by exerting a blanket superiority over the other gender, that we would be practicing sexism.

Senator Graham expressed the view that if he said that he would make a better judge than a Latina woman because he is a white male, he would be drummed out of the senate. Well, some of that depends on the opinions of his constituents. But he suggested that her assertion that maybe a wise Latina could make better decisions than a white man were just as bad as a white man asserting his superiority over a Latina woman. In my view the comparison just does not hold water and his indignation strikes me as disingenuous. Its not the same because white men HAVE and still to a certain extent in certain circumstances DO claim superior status over women. Look at pay parity, violence against women, college entrance rates of women, the list goes on. It's because we don't have real equality in our society between men and women, between white and people of color, that so-called discrimination against white men will never have the same sting as discrimination against women and men of color. I believe that white men hold more cards than women and men of color. Period. That's why Mr. Graham and any other senator should be booted out of their office if they assert that they are superior to a woman of color. Its simply worse when you do have more of the power.

The only sexism I saw at the hearings were white men trying make a Latina woman – an incredibly well-educated, smart, top of her class, summa cum laude judge – feel bad for being proud of her accomplishments and her heritage. Some things may never change.

This is just my opinion – what do you think? What was your impression of the tenor and substance of the hearings? We'd love to know.

Posted by Kate Tinnan, WRC Volunteer