Comments

Tom, "horrid" NOTHING! Like you said, people are inherently biased. The way I see it, it's a "bias" toward good client experiences and quality work (and making a profit at the same time) that shapes everything about my work. Thusly, a bias AGAINST crappy customer service and focusing purely on the numbers. I do hereby second your "D'uh." (Is there such a thing as a "Double D'uh?" If not, I claim copyrights here and now. If there is and I just violated copyright, my name just got changed to Trevor Gay for this purposes of this comment. LOL.)

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 10:22 AM

P.S.: you probably wouldn't make it as a judge anyway. There would be WAY too much controversy over you issuing a contempt citation against the first poor soul who tried to enter a graph and spreadsheet into evidence. LMAO.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 10:33 AM

"you probably wouldn't make it as a judge anyway. There would be WAY too much controversy over you issuing a contempt citation against the first poor soul who tried to enter a graph and spreadsheet into evidence."

Amen, bro!

Posted by tom peters at June 5, 2009 11:01 AM

"By the way, just to set the record straight, if I haven't in the last 15 years: I do definitely think the world would be a better place if women constituted the majority—significant majority?—of Prime Ministers and Presidents and Judges. Among other things, I suspect there would be less war, less violence in general, less environmental degradation and, "OMG," more com-pass-ion."

Obviously, you have not seen Sarah Palin make speeches lately.
Could it be that the people who get elected to high office have these biases and not necessarily men? I'm sure men are more likely to have those biases, but usually men without those biases lose elections. It's probably why George Bush the elder lost to Ronald Reagan in the Republican Party primary in 1980. Bush was thought of as wimpy and Reagan was thought of as the 'tough guy'. (Even though on was a war hero and the other was a war movie hero)

Posted by dan at June 5, 2009 11:02 AM

Your comment that Latina and other women are more compassionate than (white) men is one of those famous TP generalizations that are getting very tired.

Yes, you are the product of a sexist upbringing, but you're over-compensating and your pandering "insights" about women over the last few years don't make you any more clued-in than perhaps your own catcalling while a youthful Seabee back in the 1960s.

It's also getting very old to refer to "white guys" in the perjorative way you do.

What people object to is the identity politics: that a "white" poltician cannot govern "Latinos" because they don't understand the background. You see the inherent racism in that, right? If a white man cannot be "wise enough" to rule on issues affecting Latinos because he hasn't "lived that life" then the reverse must be true as well -- how could any Latino ever understand this system built by white guys, right? They haven't lived your WASPy life, so they don't get it, correct?

Posted by Glenn at June 5, 2009 11:03 AM

dan, you got a hearty laugh from me on that one. Related note: Sarah Palin did not move her personal effects in to the office of Veep, either! She's NOT the most eloquent, to be sure.

And I share your assessment of the Bush vs. Reagan outcome. One wanted "A new world order," the other more like "To get some things in order." Every bias has its own season, I guess.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 11:10 AM

Sir, you have totally missed the point, which is unsurprising because you are so far outside of your expertise. Your biases are coloring your judgment, and so reinforce the error of your conclusion!

For judges, especially appellate judges, bias and emotional involvement are absolutely not appropriate. They are not supposed to be just, or compassionate .. they are supposed to follow the law, even when it is not just and not compassionate. We need compassion in the executive and legislative branches, not in the judicial branch.

The whole point of being aware of one's biases is to correct for them, or recuse oneself if that is not realistic. When Ms. Sotomayor suggests that her biases will lead to better decisions, she is not only wrong, but wrong-headed.

Do you really want a judge who admits to emotional decision making on the bench? Do you want decisions to be impacted by whether the parties are of the same race as the judge? Can those decisions be trusted as impartial?

It is not a horrid thought that the Supremes be compassionate people. It IS horrid thought that they might choose compassion over legality.

This is not because compassion is bad, it is because compassion is relative. When Judge Sotomayor showed compassion to the blacks who did not pass the New Haven promotion exam, she was cruel to those who did pass.

A judge cannot give without taking away, and cannot lift up without holding down. When those decisions are made emotionally rather than based on law, we all lose.

Posted by Tom J. at June 5, 2009 11:13 AM

Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason.

Posted by Jim Outland at June 5, 2009 11:17 AM

Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason.

Posted by Jim Outland at June 5, 2009 11:17 AM

Tom
By the time of Megatrends, it was stressed that the trend setting states were like CA, FL, NY, etc.
Not exactly a wasp profile.
P.S. i´m white and protestant - Brazilian.

Posted by gerson barbosa at June 5, 2009 11:24 AM

"Your comment that Latina and other women are more compassionate than (white) men is one of those famous TP generalizations that are getting very tired."

So stop reading the blog.

I am here to tell you that I don't give a tinker's damn whether or not you are tired of it. If you think men are as compassionate as women you are from another planet.

I have read more research on this topi than 99% of the population, M or F, and the hard-nosed research supports the life-evidence, and new stuff, neurologically based, pours in by the day.

I am stunned by your remark!

Posted by tom peters at June 5, 2009 11:36 AM

"bias and emotional involvement are absolutely not appropriate"

If you think any living human being is not wildly biased you, too, are from another planet. And if you think there is but one interpretation of the law, you are absent any understanding of the human race. I knew Justice William Brennan just a little--his view of the law differd from Scalia's, and that's understatement. and if you think the law doesn't have a white male bias, I ask again, what planet are you from?

Posted by tom peters at June 5, 2009 11:40 AM

"Do you really want a judge who admits to emotional decision making on the bench? "

Do you really want a judge who is not self aware enough to know that they are using emotions while making a decision whether they like it or not?

Take the issue of abortion, for instance. There is no logical reason why human life cannot be defined as starting at the moment a child is born. Emotion, not logic, comes into play when you feel this is wrong.
I doubt you are moved by this Justice choice due to logic. You were moved by this issue emotionally and then you built a logical reason to justify your emotional response.

Posted by dan at June 5, 2009 11:45 AM

"Obviously, you have not seen Sarah Palin make speeches lately."

LOL! LOL! LOL!

The question here is obviously qualification and Judge Sotomayor is most certainly qualified.

dan - You bring up an excellent point about Reagan and Bush. It was for these two all about the image and Reagan beat on that front as did Kennedy over Nixon during the debates. Someone mentioned in one of my recent posts that Kennedy was more liberal than the brilliant moderate Nixon.

Glenn - I appreciate and clearly understand your point about identity politics. But the kind of remarks hurdled at Judge Sotomayor are obviously over the top. To assume that who we are, which is the sum of our experiences, does not affect our decision is simply silly. Wouldn't you say?

One other thing regarding this, there were quite a lot of white men including William Lloyd Garrison, Senator Charles Sumner and The Oberlin Rescuers in the early part of this country that railed against an unjust system. These men were both strong and compassionate, making the difference in the lives of many year and year tirelessly. The Quakers need also be mentioned here. So, I agree with you, Glenn, by and large. But unfortunately, the goodness, beauty and undying strength present in these men was not the norm. Fast forward to today, there are by far more men who are strong and compassionate on a host of issues and I have great hope in our future generations.

Yesterday, perched in a corner of Barnes and Noble writing in front of the big glass window, I saw a beautiful scene. Across the street is a Catholic middle school. On the playground were kids of all races white, black Indian, and there were boys and girls. They played together, laughed together and later walked to the local ice cream parlor together. They walked hand in hand, arm in arm, laughing and joking the whole way back with ice cream in hand. It was a beautiful scene indeed.

This will undoubtedly have an affect on how these kids see each other later in life. Identity politics exist because we created it; pretending like it doesn't exist will not make it go away, neither will pretend like justices have not governed from such a place is just as ludicrous. In fact, Sotomayor had said nothing different than some of the judges currently sitting. Some may say that the fact that Justice Thomas works so diligently to do the exact on all fronts points to identity politics itself, an ideologue who benefited largely from a system he vehemently now opposes.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 11:49 AM

" So stop reading the blog.

I am here to tell you that I don't give a tinker's damn whether or not you are tired of it. If you think men are as compassionate as women you are from another planet."

Reading this response - it is evident that Tom is a white male.

Posted by dan at June 5, 2009 11:50 AM

Judith, thank you. For painting a beautiful picture of what you saw. Thank God.

THERE is the future of our nation, our businesses, our courts, everything. They will be indoctrinated by books and propoganda and history. Yet you witnessed them learning the most valuable lessons of all, ice cream in hand. Let's hope we don't educate the sheer humanity and goodness out of them.

There is hope for us yet, isn't there?

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 12:01 PM

Judith, there are indeed compassionate men! And there are men who are good listeners! But my interest lies with the modal man in the normal distribution. And there is a sigtnificant difference between "modal man" and "modal woman." I also believe that training can help--but it can't on the whole overcome genes and the testosterone tsunami that came my way, but not yours, 7 weeks after conception. If you and I had been hanging out in the same womb, we'd have been lovey dovey huggy until week 7; after my testerone bath, I would have been whacking you around until we had popped out. I remember a quote from the guy who heads the Swedish Peace Institute. It goes something like this, "By their mid-fifties, men are almost human."---that's when we kiss goodbye to a lot of that testerone.

I'm worked up, but I gotta stop; doctor's appointment in 30 minutes--have to check to see if the blood thinner is working; this discussion in and of itself could cause me to throw a clot!

Posted by tom peters at June 5, 2009 12:01 PM

"It is not a horrid thought that the Supremes be compassionate people. It IS horrid thought that they might choose compassion over legality."

Tom J - What do you think has been going on for centuries? Do you think that the Supreme Court has ruled justly and compassionately since its inception? Uh, no!

TP - This is so very true:

"If you think any living human being is not wildly biased you, too, are from another planet. And if you think there is but one interpretation of the law, you are absent any understanding of the human race. I knew Justice William Brennan just a little--his view of the law differd from Scalia's, and that's understatement. and if you think the law doesn't have a white male bias, I ask again, what planet are you from?"

O'Connor and Ginsberg have both said so themselves and they should know!

Jim Outland - Lady Justice is a forever reminder of what SHOULD be, definitely not what is. Inequality in sentencing abounds.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 12:06 PM

Tom, perhaps that's why estrogen replacement patches are so popular whilst we don't see any of our buddies applying testosterone replacement patches.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 12:08 PM

Looking at some of these responses reminds me of why so few organizations "get it" when it comes to companies designing and marketing and distributing products in markets where women are the primary purchasers-decisions. (I.e. most markets--like cars and PCs.

Posted by tom peters at June 5, 2009 12:08 PM

Hope the pacemaker has a damn good battery.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 12:11 PM

Tom,

"...modal man... normal distribution.."

Very impressive coming from a guy who's been so harshly accused of blatant and wanton disregard for numbers!

A toast to trend lines!

Sorry... couldn't help myself. ;-)

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 12:16 PM

On a cable show this morning, there were two women
authors who were hawking their book "Womenomics".

They were saying that women aren't men and maybe they don't want top jobs in government or business. They both had turned down promotions that would have let them climb the career ladder in order to raise kids. Tom seems somewhat obsessed with wanting more women in high profile jobs - this might be because, since he is male, he sees value in those jobs. The modal woman may not. This may be directly related to the fact that they are more human.
The whole thing about marketing PC's to women -
maybe it's just not possible - or maybe the fact that men don't seem to need as many pairs of shoes as women do is all attributable to marketing.

Posted by dan at June 5, 2009 12:26 PM

Woah, I don't agree so I have to go away? Only fans are allowed here in the land of the big red exclamation point? I can't be a TP-style provacatuer, too?

You responded with more generalizations; your comment that you've read more than 99% of the population, you don't see that as kind of ... arrogant?

Those of us out here who have raised compassionate young "white guys" beg to differ with the generalizations.

I suppose it's convenient to "hate on" white guys -- we're the ones populating most of the TP seminars and buying most of the TP tapes and DVDs. Criminy, if we were to stop our own self-loathing you'd have no market left!

Your generalizations about compassionate women versus white guys are straight out of 1970s Womens Studies curricula.

So I'm advising you to get updated. Besides my day job working to perpetuate the white guy system, I help run a non-profit school. Our population identifying as multi-racial is now around 20%, and it climbs every year. These families don't tolerate "white guy vs compassionate Latina" talk because they've got BOTH in the family. Some of these compassionate Latinas are MADLY IN LOVE with their WASPY husbands! And vice versa, and every other combination!

Don't forget there are a bunch of white guys in Barack Obama's immediate family!

As for girls and their compassion, Scientific American described some recent research findings that girls are pretty aggressive... toward each other:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bitch-evolved-girls-cruel

Posted by Glenn at June 5, 2009 12:34 PM

Dan - It was indeed so touching for me. It brought tears to my eyes. Kids are pure; it is we who corrupt them.

TP - Thank you so much for that. There must be something more to this than what meets the eye and just because we don't have all the scientific answers to a host of things does not mean that such will not be made known. I know women will probably throw a fit but the whole "help meet" thing has relevance. As does scripture which say that "men are to love their wives as Christ loves the church." It is not by accident that nowhere in the Bible does it say that women are to love men.

Love is what women do. This undoubtedly is a direct correlation to testosterone that causes men to detach themselves in order to do what needs to be done. Just watching my 6' 3" full- blood Irish male friend is something to behold alone, as was watching my brothers growing up. My mother raised 7 boys alone and she was always very conscious as they grew up to honor their drive, though it was very clear who ran our house.

My mom represented both father and mother and she did so, oh, so very well, though imperfectly. Perhaps my drive comes from merely watching her. But she was so very wise with her womanhood, even with a man who left her with 12 kids and came back 3 or 4 times a year. She remained his "help meet" until he died. This helped her children, especially her sons tremendously.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 12:38 PM

Glen - Regarding aggressive women as a norm, I wonder if some things are initiated by culture. In the wild kingdom are there pacts of aggressive females?

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 12:42 PM

BTW - What does the fact that Barack Obama has white men in his family have to do with this discussion?

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 12:44 PM

"Woah, I don't agree so I have to go away? Only fans are allowed here in the land of the big red exclamation point? I can't be a TP-style provacatuer, too?"

Glenn, give the testosterone-ridden white guy a break. He can't help himself.

Posted by dan at June 5, 2009 12:45 PM

"It is not by accident that nowhere in the Bible does it say that women are to love men."

Only thing I remember reading is "Wives, SUBMIT unto your husbands." [emphasis mine.]

I know I'll probably catch it from some direction for raising the question, but I call 'em like I see 'em... HOW MANY books in the Bible were supposedly written by women? Might explain the above scripture and wording. Lest someone scream "It's a translation issue" I would ask: which sex history tells us did most (all) of the translation? Maybe if women HAD written it, we'd also have lower divorce rates and better parenting skills.

Just exploring different angles and possibilities, that's all.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 12:54 PM

"Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason" - she cannot bear to see what WASPS have done to her. Remember the difference between law and justice. Law was invented by men to take over from justice in governing relations between communities so that rich men have way of getting even richer. The law will not be able to carry out this, its primary function, if there are women and minorities involved who will insist on bringing some concept of justice into legal proceedings. As for emotions being involved in judgments, any judge will be happy to bring in emotion into decision making if it suits the law's primary purpose.

Posted by Andrew Baines at June 5, 2009 12:55 PM

Glenn - After reading the Scientific American article, I think I understand why Tom is so supportive of women. He wants to stay on their good side - (in other words, he's scared sh*tless of them!)

Posted by dan at June 5, 2009 12:58 PM

Yes, Dan, in that same chapter it speaks of submitting one to another in love. Truth and honesty in intrepretation prevail. Such intrepretation without love is ueseless. White men wrote the Constitution. As an African American female it obviously did not include me when it was written. But it prevails, nonetheless, because of the inherent truth therein.

What a wonderfully inspired work of love and beauty for people of the the whole world to enact.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 1:05 PM

Tom, first of all, kudos for this post. Why? Because it brings people's attention to one of the most important aspects human beings need to learn, if not THE most important: self-awareness. I feel it's very important to emphasize the importance of this post, which I think I can summarize in these statements:

1. You are aware you are biased.
2. Everyone of us, human beings, is biased.

This awareness is of utmost importance, because it brings to the table a much needed calmness and humility to actually discussing things in any situation in life (not just legal ones) and not just close ourselves up and try to prove our points no matter what (confirmation bias, etc.).

That awareness, if practiced every day, can do wonders for the world. It and it alone can break the attachment we ALL initially have to our opinions, and actually talk and work something out that's of benefit, and create something new that wasn't that way when we started. This allows a human being, if he uses this awareness, to change his mind. To grow.

And that is crucial to improving any system, be it legal, medical, philosophical... Or any enterprise or firm: feedback from all points of view, not just from top management,etc. Or any social relationship(s) for that matter: spouse, kids, friends.

Why? Because that's the only thing that allows us to acknowledge when we are wrong, that allows true feedback to pour in both ways, that makes it acceptable that each one of us can make mistakes, has made mistakes, and will CONTINUE making mistakes. But making mistakes isn't really the problem. What is the problem, then? Lack of awareness: of our biases, and a host of other factors that weigh in in each of our daily decisions.

Once a mistake is noticed, a truly mentally healthy person wouldn't mind how he feels about the mistake or what people say or think but would place importance on what he does once he realizes his initial opinion wasn't completely accurate, and on what he learns from the experience. And truly self-aware people around would certainly point the mistake out, but would NOT JUDGE as we normally do. They'd try to HELP.

The mentally healthy way of acting then would be something like this: "I'll refrain from what I decided, rectify my decision, change my initial paradigm accept consequences (if any) and live on." This is of huge importance in EVERY ASPECT of human life, especially in the legal system.

But normally, you close yourself up (due to conditioned insecurities & fear, especially of public opinion). So you practically never see a retraction from a judge (or a sports referee, for that matter LOL). Why? Because they fear being ridiculed. But ridicule wouldn't exist in a self-aware society. Of course legal decisions are important, but the law is not perfect, so what's important is dialogue, understanding, and not finger pointing.

Humans usually think that order, discipline, decisiveness or commitment can only come from being "tough", from showing "no mercy", which usually translates to being hard headed and close minded. And judges and coaches usually are put wrongly into that category. And people condemn a judge if he or she decides something, instead of trying to reason, not being aware that this condemnation makes it even harder, if not impossible, for another human being to let go of his or her insecurities and try to see things in another way.

The second thing I believe is important but that I feel most people might not realize from the post is that there are things that can be done about the biases, to truly avoid being controlled by them. There are a myriad techniques, articles, books, ways of thinking, that allow us to grow as humans being and, even though at first we keep the bias, we aren't controlled by it anymore. That is what's important. We are aware of it, so we don't let it rule us. And this way, it dies away, through constant awareness. Science supports this: the initial bias is nothing but a conditioned way of thinking that has made a path in the brain, a path of neurons. By constantly and consciously noticing our initial bias and choosing to "fight it", the original path dies, and a new one is physically created. And so, we truly become "someone else", somebody better. We grow.

So, the first thing is awareness. Every time. But the second is growth. Change. That's the desired outcome.

Posted by Cesar at June 5, 2009 1:12 PM

Are the men in power not compassionate enough because the rise to that office made them so (or weeded out the ones who were)?

We had a female prime minister once. Whatever your views on her politics, compassion did not immediatly spring to mind with Mrs Thatcher

I am fascinated by the types of people who make it to the top in business and if the route taken and the skills required to get there were the best selection process.

Posted by PaulH at June 5, 2009 1:25 PM

Pardon the Southern boy's ignorance, y'all, but I can't avoid wondering...

In a country based on a Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Constitution penned by... white males...

With a court system devised and designed by... white males....

Empowered to pass judgments regarding the Constitutionality of, interpretation of, and application of laws created very largely by... white males...

Resulting in an arguably disproportionate number of NON-white males being imprisoned...

On lands where NON-white people were deemed to be heathens and savages, worthy only of re-education vs. eradication largely by... white males...

Is it not possible that perhaps, perhaps, perhaps we could consider the fact that bias (be it racial, gender, or otherwise) will ALWAYS be a part of everything humans endeavor to do, and therefore the best we can hope for is to introduce (inject?) "bias diversity" (sounds weird, I know) into the courts?

And for some reason, it's sticking in my craw right now that we so adamantly praise those white male "founding fathers" for the idea of "Democracy" (which we're still having issues with implementing, if we'll all be honest about it), yet history indicates a large portion of Jefferson's ideas on democracy came from his 30 or so years of being an ambassador to the Iriquois people.

And I just checked my driver's license...

Sex: M
Race: W

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 1:26 PM

Lyrics from an artist who came out of Detroit a few years back; in fact, the only good thing to come out of Detroit in the past few years:

Habitual offenders, scumbag lawyers with agendas
I'll tell you sometimes people I don't know what's worse
Natural disasters or these wolves in sheep clothes pastors
Now Gad damn it I'm scared to send my children to church

Very important lyric right here-----

And how can we seek salvation when our nations race relations
GOT ME FEELING GUILTY OF BEING WHITE

But faith in human nature, our creator and our savior, I'm no saint
But I believe in what is right.

I happened to attend school in a very diverse, low income section of Dallas. The races all learned a lot from each other; including, that you would get your ass kicked for skin color. Kids today are so much more integrated and accepting of ther surroundings. I'm glad improvement has been made over the past couple of decades.

With regard to women being kinder, gentler people, it's a toss up in my experience. The female "movement" did nothing but make women more like men in my opinion...yuck!!!!

Let's not forget the women that are on trial for strangling their own children, drowning them in lakes, or in my city, setting fire to them (after using an acclerant on the couch). The kids were too young to flee for themselves.

TP---I would prefer if "humanity" in a broader sense was discussed. To not invite people back with opposing views is silly. Is this what you really want? My experience through life is definitely different from yours, and I hope that might be worth something to the blog. I shouldn't feel guilty that I'm white; in fact, I'm glad I am. I'm quite proud of what our white heritage has brought us in many cases. Let's not forget who predominately fought the wars for freedom and equal rights...white people.

Posted by Scott Peters at June 5, 2009 1:27 PM

Commentator: "Your comment that Latina and other women are more compassionate than (white) men is one of those famous TP generalizations that are getting very tired."
Tom: "So stop reading the blog."

Tom, I love that you stand up for what you believe in and aren't afraid to say "if you don't like what I say, don't read it."

Plenty of us do like what you say, and I really enjoyed this post.

Re: Women like Sarah Palin being not very compassionate... Sarah Palin has clawed her way to the top in a system (and Party) that rewards that way of thinking. So obviously a woman who shares those traits will rise up. Just like a 7ft basketball player has a big advantage.

Our whole system (politically and economically) is set-up to reward aggression and a "me first" attitude. So, therefore, the ones who will succeed in it (regardless of sex) are those who are more aggressive. Generally that happens to be men.

Re: Women didn't write many books of the Bible. Part of that results from the fact that very few women could even read at that time. Hard to write world-changing stuff without the ability to write. ;-)

I'm very encouraged by the rise of design in business though, and how the younger generations value teamwork. I think we're possibly swinging away from the "out for myself" mindset.

Posted by Katie at June 5, 2009 1:29 PM

OK-

Am I the only one who thinks it's hysterically funny that we go for diversity on the Bench or in the office, and then are surprised and dismayed that 'they' aren't exactly like 'us'-

-at the same time that we're screaming for more diversity?

If I wanted to work with people like me, I'd get myself cloned.

(snore)

Posted by Lois Gory at June 5, 2009 1:44 PM

"And how can we seek salvation when our nations race relations
GOT ME FEELING GUILTY OF BEING WHITE."

Scott Peters if reading this post or the comments have you "feeling guilty of being white," it's not the post or comments but you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 1:48 PM

PaulH - Regarding Margaret Thatcher, anamolies are always fun to consider. :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 1:50 PM

The women who do such things as Scott Peters describes are not the norm. Just think about it, without such a one caring you, Scott, you wouldn't have been here. There's gotta be some serious love in that, bonding too.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 1:54 PM

"The female 'movement' did nothing but make women more like men in my opinion...yuck!!!!"

This statement is simply ludicrous. "NOTHING BUT?" I hope you have a "help meet," Scott.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 1:57 PM

Scott Peters what does Detroit have to do with the post save you are making a racist statement about the whole of people here? But you are completely irrelevant and the likes of you are diminishing in the US. Your are a fringe element.

Consider these words by a great woman, Eleanor Roosevelt, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." You don't have our consent and shall never have it. Speaking of "yuck," some wives sing this single lyric under their breath daily.

By the way, Scott, your butt probably deserved to be kicked back in the day if your words here are representative of who you were as a kid. Hell, I probably could have kicked your butt back then! Come to think of it, I could probably kick your butt now!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 2:26 PM

" So stop reading the blog."

Done. See ya.

Posted by Useless Sam Grant at June 5, 2009 3:00 PM

Glenn, you're not alone. There are still some of us who believe that we should be selecting the best jurist regardless of identity politics. If Judge Sotomayor is the best we have, she should become the next Supreme Court justice.
I just don't see how gaming the system against white males today makes us any different or better than the people who discriminated against minorities or women in the past. Just seems to be a clumsy attempt to fix history.
BTW, my life experience does confirm Tom's assertions. I've had four female bosses in my lifetime and all were fantastic leaders!

Posted by Bruce Bortree at June 5, 2009 3:00 PM

Just did a WHOIS on the URL tompeters.com. Much to my surprise, Jerry Springer has NOT actually hijacked this domain. I make a motion we follow the old Irish tradition of drinkin' a few and then sluggin' it out.

Only drawback: last person standing gets handed the pub tab ;-)

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 3:02 PM

Bruce, ditto. The best example of leadership I've had the pleasure of working with was a Director of Nursing that had an amazing combination of strength AND compassion. I know of many nights she stayed awake trying to come up with solutions to tough problems, wanting to do what was both fair and effective. We spent many a night brainstorming until time for us both to be in our offices at the hospital.

Even those she had to reprimand spoke highly of her. She rarely had to reprimand severely, or reprimand the same employee for the same issue.

Excellent leader.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 3:09 PM

Bruce - What judicial decisions can you point to that make Sotomayor unqualified? She is clearly qualified. Futhermore, we wouldn't even be having this conservation if she was not a woman and a minority. Also, as I have said above, her statement does not differ from Justice Alito's. By the way, I wonder if conservatives would be happy with atheists on the Court? Surely, their views would have no bearing on their decisions, eh?

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 3:23 PM

"...we wouldn't even be having this conservation..."

Uh, Judith. I think maybe we both should have a cold one. Did you mean to say "conVerSation?" LOL. From where I stand, nobody's "conSerVing" much of anything today. It has been one of those days, hasn't it? Glad I'm not the only slydexic one in the room. I am a charter member of D.A.M. (Mothers Against Dyslexia.)

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 3:32 PM

What I think could do her in is her ruling on the fire fighters.
I have no idea what material the tests covered.
Sometimes tests like that test for grammar skills and spelling skills.If that is the case, I don't think it will be a big deal. But if the tests test for knowledge directly related to firefighting, her opponents might have a case that the public responds to.

Posted by dan at June 5, 2009 3:36 PM

Okay, I've only read about 80% of the comments so feel free to hold the other 20% against me if you wish. Or all of them, it's your perogative.

So, I'm confused (nothing new for me). If "following the law" is the sole requirement of a judge, wouldn't laws stay unchanged? Isn't compassion - a more advanced understanding of the suffering of "others" - the reason for the changes to laws; e.g. amendments, etc.?

This is not a wise a**, rhetorical question. I'm looking for an answer. Because if I'm wrong, soon computers should be able to be programmed to rationally interpret case law. True? And that will be a very scary day indeed!

Posted by Tom Asacker at June 5, 2009 3:39 PM

Compassion can be applied many ways, hence the suspicion it's more of a code for applying one's own bias rather than a fair and proper legal ruling.

Posted by Michigan and Me at June 5, 2009 3:41 PM

Our friends in the US can be forgiven for missing the fact that our British government is rapidly falling apart in a daily soap opera that is becoming laughable, cringeworthy and embarrassing. Our Prime Minister Gordon Brown continues to bury his head in the sand and not hear the growing anger and disillusionment of the population. The ever growing list of resignations of senior politicians immediately around Mr Brown is relevant to Tom’s posting here in one respect. Many of the people who are voting with their feet and leaving the heart of government are women. In the last three days senior ministers Hazel Blears, Jacqui Smith and Caroline Flint have all resigned.

In her resignation letter published today Caroline Flint writes these words to Mr Brown:

“You have a two tier Government. Your inner circle and then the remainder of Cabinet. I have the greatest respect for the women who have served as full members of Cabinet and for those who attend as and when required. However, few are allowed into your inner circle. Several of the women attending Cabinet - myself included - have been treated by you as little more than female window dressing.”

Mr Brown has today ‘reshuffled’ his Cabinet (otherwise known as shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic). The new Cabinet consists largely of white, middle-aged grey-suited males. OH DEEP JOY SAYS I (NOT). This may not prove anything at all I guess but it sure gives off a pretty symbolic message as far as I am concerned. It's really NOT about 'quotas' - it's about common sense and yet again we see that 'sense' is not that 'common' in politics on this side of the pond at least. Never mind ....Here's the good news ... The weekend starts here! :-) - Its good to vent!

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 5, 2009 3:44 PM

I'm with you Michigan and Me, but doesn't most human advancement come from compassion?

Posted by Tom Asacker at June 5, 2009 3:51 PM

The big mystery is how would she rule in an abortion case.

She would have to be compassionate to be pro-life. Compassionate people don't want to destroy life.
Then again, she would also have to be compassionate
if she believes in the rights of a mother and reflects on how an unwanted child can impact someones life...

Posted by dan at June 5, 2009 3:51 PM

"Do Gingrich and others [read: other white guys] really feel that they are free of bias?
Nobody could be that blind or un-self aware.
Right?
(Gingrich is an historian for God's sake.)"

Gingrich is an historian and he uses this knowledge to manipulate people. He knows what to say to get people to choose up sides.

Posted by dan at June 5, 2009 3:55 PM

Tom A., similar comment/question (the computer part) that I posed to Tom directly earlier today. As for compassion, one could reason that the origin of law itself is compassion for victims, although we are indeed discovering that such a narrow view of the courts and justice does little or nothing to make reparations, heal victims and communities, or even reduce crime rates and recidivism. Hence, some of our Canadian neighbors (and even some court systems in the U.S.) have for years been implementing and experimenting with derivations of the Native American healing circles -- a much more holistic concept that goes beyond traditional justice.

Laws do change, based on compassion, different interpretations of the wording and intent, interpretations on their Constitutionality, and (dare I say it) "biases."

We still hear arguments over whether or not Rowe. v. Wade will be overturned. The law itself was worded clearly. Nothing ambiguous. But we argue WHEN the law is appropriate (i.e., "applicability"), and whether it is "ethical" or "moral," all of which calls for "opinions." Opinions are not "fact," they are subjective. Subjectivity denotes bias, plain and simple.

The argument goes full circle. We appoint Supreme Court Justices not to MAKE laws or ENFORCE laws, rather to decide on matters that are 99% opinion. And we know that those will differ, otherwise there would only need to be ONE Justice on the Supreme Court, as opposed to calling for a vote.

Most votes wins. Democratic interpretation, modification, and at times outright nullification of law.

Even those who conceived of and created the Supreme Court saw the need to weigh opinions and biases and knew that the inevitable differences in those would be most fairly (although still not perfectly) be handled by a majority vote.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 3:57 PM

Funny, Dan! I was just about to respond to your Jerry Springer comment. If any of these can bench press 240 and are competent in martial arts, I would go on that show. Otherwise, it would be embarrassing--for them. As it appears, they are a bunch of white and black baby daddies talking about their baby mommas and vice verse. Plus, I wouldn't be caught dead defending some of these folks. But I must admit to have never seen this show, not even once, save the commercials for it on TV.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 4:05 PM

The stop reading this blog was not in response to criticism--criticism is why I do the blog. It was in response to the comment that I've said my "women's piece" too many times and the reader is tired of it. Since i'm likely to say it several times a year, then the stop reading it idea would seem to be a pragmatic response on my part.

Posted by tom peters at June 5, 2009 4:05 PM

Back to compassion (to be repetitive), and jails: There is, alas (and I mean "alas"), clear evidence that men are responsible for 90% or more of all three flacvors of violence: war, domestic abuse, violent crimes.

Alas ... as a male of 66 years standing, this makes me very sad.

Posted by tom peters at June 5, 2009 4:09 PM

dan - I agree with you on Gingrich. He has, by the way, retracked his "racist" comment on Sotomayor, probably totally based on self-interest, though, which was probably the reason the comment was made in the first place. So, yeah, I agree with you on Gingrich, the historian who left office in disgrace who is trying to make a comeback. When I see both he and Dick Armey on TV I basically laugh. Well, I laugh less with Armey as he rountinely makes sexist statements. He is another one who left in disgrace.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 4:12 PM

Tom Asacker - You make a simple brilliant point. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 4:20 PM

Tom, incarceration statistics do support what you are saying. And it is sad. Recent case in Alabama of the man who threw his children off the bridge near the coast is the kind of thing that makes one shudder.

Judith, Gingrich is definitely a curious fellow, to put it nicely, isn't he? I was once a big Gingrich follower because I liked a lot of his ideas. For example, welfare programs that included training for work skills, and programs that rewarded school kids for reading and learning during their Summer breaks, etc. But I will flatly admit that I don't know I stand on him now. I guess I've just stuck my head in the sand where he's concerned. Probably not the most informed or noble of solutions, but I can't worry about everything all the time, can I? I'm lucky to keep tabs on what I am doing, much less the whole of the world.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 4:24 PM

"Tom Asacker - You make a simple brilliant point. Thank you."

Amen.

Posted by tom peters at June 5, 2009 4:24 PM

Thank you Judith. Listen, something is NOT working. For example, Tom Peter's home state and mine - Vermont and New Hampshire - are ahead of the curve with some of the fastest growing numbers of women behind bars. They are not there for violent crimes against society. Rather, their crimes are typically in response to a society of isolation and lack of compassion, and subsequent effects on them and their families. I don't want to debate this; it's all subjective after all. But how we "neighbors" can allow this to happen is beyond me. Yes, compassion is needed in the courts. But, it's more critically needed from all of us. Have a great weekend everyone. And please, count your blessings.

Posted by Tom Asacker at June 5, 2009 4:35 PM

Ah, Tom Asacker, you have "fleshed" out beautifully my point above about sentencing. Thank you so very much for your beautiful words here. Where truth is present it is so very beautiful indeed. Many thanks to you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 4:48 PM

Guess it's worthless to point out that if we associate high estrogen levels with women (fact), longer life expectancy with women (fact), then high levels of estrogen would actually bode WELL for longevity?

For those of you who INSIST on mathematical evidence: if A=B and B=C, then A=C.

As for A->B, and B->C being proof of the indirect causal relationship A->C, that might be debatable; however, I have seen studies that say high testosterone levels lead to stronger stress reactions, and higher stress reactions reduce the life expectancy; therefore, if D->E... oops...

Gotta run. It's time to go change my estrogen patch.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 5:24 PM

STAR TREK ALERT!

My favourite Gene Roddenberry story. Patrick Stewart was given the part as Captain Jean-Luc Picard. He's introduced to the press. The press notice that not only is Mr. Stewart not young but he's also bald.

Journalist: "Mr. Roddenberry, wouldn't you think that by the 23rd century, man would have invented a cure for baldness?"

No hesitation.

Mr. Roddenberry: "In the 23rd century they wouldn't care about it."

Why can't we bring that attitude forward a couple of hundred years?

Posted by Mark JF at June 5, 2009 5:45 PM

Mark JF, that's funny stuff, there, I don't care who ya are. LOL.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 6:30 PM

C-LOVE, I can always tell when you've become incredibly annoyed. Your comments (unsolicited and unprovoked by others i.e., no one has directed specific comments towards you) become nasty quickly. But I have come to know you by now. I compassion you. :-) By your words, you would that I recount the countless foul actions of men throughout history. But I shall not, not even a few.

Suffice it to say, reality is that without estrogen and a womb, in which you were conceived for nine months, sucked upon the breast thereafter for how many additional months?, and tagged behind undoubtedly for an additional how many years?, there would be no C-LOVE. Honor your mother, my friend. A woman's love birthed you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 6:40 PM

"I have seen studies that say high testosterone levels lead to stronger stress reactions, and higher stress reactions reduce the life expectancy."

Even if there isn't reduced life immediately, such stress is seen in the very bodies of elderly men over time, even younger men. A single glance at elderly couples the same age will typically show this stress level in men's bodies. Which of the two are more bent and bowed? Who needs assistance most? We are indeed "help meet." I've noticed this for years, having been taken to senior complexes regularly as a young girl by our church to sing and sit with seniors. Boys and girls were required to participate.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 7:02 PM

Two comments have been deleted as they were in poor taste. Feel free to visit our FAQ for the comment guidelines: http://www.tompeters.com/faq.php

Have a good weekend.

Posted by Shelley Dolley at June 5, 2009 9:41 PM

TP - I read your in the womb whacking comment again and I'm really laughing! It's waaaay funny! Thanks for that!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 11:35 PM

Judith, that definitely was trademark TP humor at its finest, huh? I actually have a cassette recording of Tom's 1997 speech (if you dare call it that) for FastCompany's "RealTime." A couple of days ago I popped it in the player for the first time in years and nearly cried laughing. When Tom started pulling out and going through all the "stuff" from his suitcase, it was a trip.

I'd love to have actually been there to SEE that one. Tom Peters forbidden to do his usual "talk" or to use his trademark PowerPoint slides. That was bound to be interesting. But Taylor and Webber telling him to verbally "open the kimono"... that's asking for trouble. LOL.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 11:41 PM

Dangit, Judith, you're not playing fair. I just tried to go back to work on something and now you've got that crazy mental image stuck in my head again. "Womb Whacking." It would make a neat little "Southpark" style animation sequence, wouldn't it? Like that song you can't get out of your head. If I can't sleep for laughing over this all night, I'm looking you up in the book and waking your tail up tonight. LMAO.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 11:46 PM

LOL, Dan! I don't know how I missed that whacking scene. But it's gotta be a classic! Would love to hear the FastCompany recordings. I wonder if they can still be purchased.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 11:58 PM

Southpark, LOL! I'm up man, but tonight I'm actually a bit tired. I'm up waiting for my nephew. I've allowed this young adult testosterone lad to spend the summer with me. He doesn't yet have a key. It's his first night. He thinks that my house will be by far more lenient than his dad's. Probably so. But because I'm tired tonight I may just rag on him just because.... Not! But I hope he gets here soon. It's 1:20 AM. Usually, this time is early for me. He knows this. But tonight it feels waaaay late! Busy week.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2009 12:21 AM

I know the feeling Judith. Along with that, I've felt really psychologically "charged" all day because I am truly passionate about things like health care quality, along with education quality, and customer/client relations. Some of the exchanges on the blogs today got wilder than normal (an understatement, I'm sure you'll agree), and when you combine that with genuinely putting your heart and mind into trying to share constructive ideas, and throw in a couple of hard days of video production work and web design stuff... well, I'm now having one of those nights when my brain and body are totally worn out, but the adrenaline (crap, there's the "a" word popping up) is still taking its toll, making sleep a hard objective to achieve. I'm sure you know that feeling well. Plus, we're in the process of getting read to sue a police officer over our wrecked truck (her son was driving her personal car, hit our truck, had just gotten his license, she had failed to add him on her insurance, they have no coverage, and two months later she still is making no effort to pay for the extensive damage to the truck, so we're out of one of our only two vehicles. Long story short: we're suing her butt and her Chief is telling us he's probably going to suspend her over the matter. Did I mention that she's a CAPTAIN on the police department? How's THAT for setting a good example for the public? I can see the headlines: "Police Captain Sued Over No Liability Insurance." Did I mention that's a requirement under state law? If the roles had been reversed in this situation, do you think we'd be getting off this easy? A local reporter got wind of this situation and it may be on the nightly news next week. Did I mention the Chief has only been on the job for a couple of weeks? How's that for a welcoming reception to your new job?) With that on my mind, too, it may be a LONG night.

Anywho, hope your nephew's doing good and that the Summer goes well. Have a great weekend.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 6, 2009 12:53 AM

Judith, on the FastCompany recording thing, I don't know if it ever was available, actually. In 1999 or so, it was streaming on the web and I happened to record it. I'm willing to put it on the web for folks to listen to (and trust me, it's serious entertainment), but I'm waiting for the okay to do so. As a media producer, I (of all people) appreciate the nature of copyrights. Fortunately, there would be no gain in it for me personally and since it's not available for purchase, it wouldn't be taking revenue away from anyone, so I'm hopeful we'll get the go-ahead to stream it.

It's right up there with Abbott & Costello's "Who's on First?" in my book ;-)

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 6, 2009 1:01 AM

Well outside my sphere of knowledge here (before someone points it out), so just a lay opinion from the sidelines. It is a fallacy to think that "The Law" is literal, complete, objective, unambiguous or absolute. The legal profession makes a healthy living off its multitude of ambiguities and gaps. Much of it is based on precedent - case law that provides reasonable equivalents of how a relevant law has been previously interpreted in similar cases. The Law exists mainly in the way its words have been or can be interpreted, because it is not itself precise or complete enough - it cannot be. Lawyers argue in front of judges, who bring their own views to bear (oh yes they do) and decisions on many cases are made by a jury - who are anything but expert in The Law. In other words The Law is constantly being interpreted, it is not hard and fast.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court justices represent the final summit of this process of interpretation. Cases that come to them will have been all through the lower courts, and because The Law is often unclear, there will have been highly credible grounds for appeal in the few cases the Supreme Court hears. In such cases the justices are aiming to provide "good" verdicts, and that takes their work into the territory of "let right be done" and "common decency", areas where compassion and empathy are perfectly valid qualities to bring to bear. They don't have to (indeed they shouldn't) be at odds with the letter of The Law, but when, as said, that is incomplete or inadequate, then other factors can guide decisions that represent the spirit of The Law.

Posted by RobCH at June 6, 2009 2:53 AM

Dan - I hope everything works out for you. If the go ahead it gotten, I'd like to hear them. But there may be plans to have them released in a fashion suitable for TPC. Either way, I'm in.

Rob - It would not matter who said the above words to me or from which country they have come as they are no less meaningful than any other comments here. I appreciate your words. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2009 8:31 AM

I’m changing the subject slightly but hopefully I will be forgiven on this day Tom.

I’ve been proudly watching TV today for at least 3 hours so far as the D-Day memorial takes place in France. I have to say my eyes moistened watching the leaders of Britain, US and France jointly with the old military folk who are still around from 1944. They all displayed great dignity and respect, coming together to remember those great heroes who died on D Day 65 years ago today. I'm humbled to say I tell my children and will tell my new grandchildren when they are old enough these famous words spoken on every Remembrance Day service in November:

“They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning. We will remember them.”

It is times like this that being British and being an ally of the US makes me feel blessed and proud remembering the sacrifices of so many millions of my Grandfather’s generation who died to keep me free.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 6, 2009 8:54 AM

RobCH, I agree with you on what is very obvious use of opinion and bias in the Supreme Court's decision making processes.

The Supreme Court is not really a "trial" venue as other courts are. By the time a case reaches the Supreme Court all the evidence and facts have been entered and considered and a verdict has been recorded, but someone has filed an appeal, as you pointed out. Such appeal will inevitably be based on how the law has been applied, whether the law is believed to be in violation of a person's (or group of people's) rights as set out in the Constitution of the United States, or whether the way evidence was obtained and/or trial proceedings violated Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Roe v. Wade, the famous abortion rights case, did not argue whether women were or were not having abortions. They either did or they didn't. There wasn't much effort required to haul a woman into court and prove that she'd had an abortion. So pro-life prosecutors had an easy time of proving guilt. Guilt of what kind? The charge was basically "murder" for having taken a life.

The laws of our land are unambiguous on what the penalties can be if you are found guilty of murder. So it seemed at the time that the prosecutors had "open and shut cases." So why did it end up in the Supreme Court? What were the appeals saying was wrong with the verdict?

The appeals were based by and large on two points:

(1) The position of the defense attorneys that if a baby had not yet been born, it was not yet a person. Since murder involves the act of taking another person's life, if it could be said the unborn child was not yet a person, the very charges of murder and the associated "guilty" verdicts would be an obvious error.

This put the Supreme Court in the position of ruling on whether or not an unborn child is actually a person. There was nothing in our law that defines at what point a fetus can be deemed to be a person. And our Constitution did not define it. So who had to decide? Supreme Court Justices had to do it. With nothing to go on other than opinions (as form of evidence) on the part of those arguing both sides of the issue, they had to make a "judgment call" -- a decision. And anyone that thinks that did not involve personal bias knows nothing at all about the realities of human decision making.

(2) The Supreme Court was also being forced to decide on how far the rights of an individual as to their own medical treatments and bodies would be allowed to extend. Again, a judgment call. The fact that bias is an issue in these judge's decisions is as made very evident every time you see a vote by the Supreme Court Justices that is not unanimous -- meaning at least one of them disagreed with the opinions of the others. Sometimes that disagreement is stated to be over which "facts" about the law are most relevant. A judge's decision to weigh one fact more heavily than another is again a matter of their personal beliefs and choices, which are based solely on "bias," even if it is a bias about which points of law carry the most weight in the particular case at hand.

The only -- ONLY (bold, italicized, highlighted, underscored, and circled) -- difference in one Supreme Court Justice and another is not a matter of qualifications to sit on the bench, it's whether or not he or she is willing to ADMIT personal bias is a part of their decision making. To put it simply, I think that the only truly honest judges are the ones who understand and admit that they are human beings that walk into the courtroom with biases that they have developed over the course of their lifetimes. In other words, they admit they are human. And any judge that claims he can render verdicts without at least a hint of personal bias is a liar.

Sotomayor is very outspoken and honest about the fact she carries biases. Whether or not I agree with her philosophical points of view in those particular biases aside, my hat is off to her having the integrity and indeed "guts" to come right out and say it. At least admitting the biases is a step toward getting them out on the table and dealing with them.

Bias is the twin sibling of assumption. In the case of assumption (or bias) the fact it exists is not the cause of our problems. Our problems occur because we are not willing to admit them or have them challenged.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 6, 2009 9:00 AM

And of course our Canadian allies too who were heavily engaged in the D Day invasion - Sincere apologies.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 6, 2009 9:01 AM

Trevor, history extends its lessons to us in many ways, doesn't it? Do we pay attention and actually learn from them? For the sake of humankind, I hope so.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 6, 2009 9:24 AM

D-Day Speech by Obama.

Hopefully nobody will mind the shift in subject, but I am sharing this link to President Obama's speech here for lack of knowing where else to put it. The latter part of his speech is a touching reminder of what the human adventure is all about. Let us each step away from the debates on business and politics, if for only three minutes or so, and listen and think about what it means to be not just a man or woman, executive or laborer, a particular race or religion, but to be part of a world that we all agree should be changed for the better. We can. If we choose to. President Obama put it much more eloquently than I could ever hope to. To watch via C.N.N. video, just go to: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/06/06/dday.ceremony/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 6, 2009 12:47 PM

OBAMA D-DAY SPEECH (long version)

Earlier I posted a link which was to a highlight clip from President Obama's D-Day speech. Here is a link to the long version:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31139497#31139497

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 6, 2009 2:12 PM

Love the discussion here. Even the guy who "disagrees." I didn't take his comments as disagreement. Everyone has a valid point and I think this space is for vetting. He's on the site, writing and commenting because I think this space is about challenging notions. Please stay and keep challenging. We all identify with groups. We live in neighborhoods for a reason. We join clubs for a reason. We have friends who are like us in some way for a reason. We comment on a single blog for a reason. We are all identifying, all the time.
What we're really talking about is control, not identity.

Posted by nextgenradio at June 6, 2009 7:19 PM

TP Blog Rules
1. Do not tiptoe on Tom's last nerve 30 minutes before a Dr. visit
2. Be certain that dissenting opinion occurs only on subjects Tom believes to be fair topics for dissenting opinion
3. Leave comments, don't leave comments, read blog, don't read blog. Who really cares?
4. Women rule!
5. White men drool!
6. Stay pithy not pissy
7. Judith rocks!

Posted by David Porter at June 6, 2009 8:01 PM

Well stated Mr. Porter...if , that of course, is you.

Do as I say...

Thanks for changing the subject Trevor. After checking out for a couple of days, I'm not surprised that comments are being deleted, bloggers are becoming hoggers, and the "general tone" is agree with me or else I'll kick your butt.

I like being white, and regardless of the commentary, white folk elected an African American President. That says more about the US that what can be depicted in the blog. If only others knew what "husbands" were whispering about their wives, or to their mistresses :).

Posted by Scott Peters at June 6, 2009 8:35 PM

Nice to read so many compassionate or at least passionate responses.

Posted by Carolyn Wood at June 6, 2009 9:10 PM

Thanks, nextgenradio, for the whole of your comment. It is much appreciated.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2009 9:15 PM

I love you, David!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2009 9:23 PM

Back at ya Judith

Posted by David Porter at June 6, 2009 9:41 PM

Alas, I find this post so troubling. So many negative generalizations or denigration of individuals, not for their individualism, but because of a link to a group-label that is making less and less sense in the world. We are a collection of over 6 billion individuals, of which no two are exactly the same (how brilliant a scheme is that!!). Take any subgroup you like (even the much maligned white males) and there is enough diversity to find brilliance, compassion, and perhaps even a qualified Supreme. Cross the subgroups and you are even more likely to find brilliance. But the brilliance will be expressed in the individual, not the subgroup.

Posted by Terry Ransbury at June 7, 2009 3:57 PM

Terry - This is a sincere request. Could you please just list in bullet or number form where you think the white male has been "much maligned" in the post and/or comments? This would make your comment specific. I would appreciate it. Thank you.

While I appreciate your world view and the beauty and uniqueness of us all, there is a vast difference between "design" and culture. Inherent in culture are biases whether based on color, class or caste. Design says that we are 99.9 percent THE SAME.

The beauty that I find in your comment is that we are not yet what we will be with our acceptance of each other culturally.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 7, 2009 5:04 PM

Just thinking about how much more I enjoy your blogs that aren't liberal mini-rants. TP, stick to biz topics pleeze.

Posted by Kyle at June 7, 2009 7:34 PM

Just thinking this uncomfortable gender and race stuff is never a part of business. Right? Biases are so not a part of business. Right? The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was so completely unnecessary. Right? Being uncomfortable is good sometimes. Right!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 7, 2009 11:15 PM

Tom, posts like this make my heart swell. This is why we love you.

Posted by Gayle at June 8, 2009 7:08 AM

Careful Gayle, could be cardiomyopathy.

Posted by David Porter at June 8, 2009 7:17 AM

I have not read the comments above. Good on you Tom. There is nothing much remarkable about Judge Sotomayor's statement, other than she is self aware. She was a New York district judge for six years, a federal appeals court judge for eleven, and since she is a woman with a Latino background, she cannot be qualified.

Posted by wmmbb at June 8, 2009 7:56 AM

Lovefest weekend & awesome recreation.

1. "Wise latina" NOT - she is a vain/mean spirited latina & intellectual lightweight - I lived the Santa Fe 10+ year lifestyle & met plenty of wise ones
2. "Better" NOT - she is a Hispanic appointee to gain votes for Democrats - certainly no better than fabulous Caucasian males
3. She is better than no one & certainly tending toward racism with the white male scathing emphasis 2 times when she gave her speeches
4. Sotomayor dismissed/buried the firefighter white males in the Supreme Court pending decision case. " ... Karen Torre, says there was nothing measured about the city's action. She says the decision amounted to reverse racial discrimination, pure and simple.

"There's no question that their race and skin color were the driving motivation behind the decision not to promote them," Torre says of the white firefighters."

5. The president even admitted Sotomoyor should have stated the "better" speeches more wisely.
6. Torre seems a wise latina

Thanks TG for the Normandy mention - I was named after a Screaming Eagle fallen one that paid the ultimate price on that beach.

Posted by C Love at June 8, 2009 8:27 AM

Yep, TP! "We love you." Thank you, sir.

I concur with C and would like to thank Trevor too for the Normandy mention. Also, thanks to Dan for posting the video clip. Super! I saw the President's speech live. It was great!

So, what's the name, C? :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2009 8:36 AM

AMEN.....AMEN....AMEN.....

Has everyone forgotten how the Republican's cried foul when the Dems said strikingly similar things.

We are all bias. The troubling thing is that their points are irrelevant yet they grand stand like their points should be a basis for dismissal.

We should all remember, what goes around, comes around. Treat people like you want to be treated...

Posted by Curtis Greve at June 8, 2009 2:37 PM

"Thanks TG for the Normandy mention - I was named after a Screaming Eagle fallen one that paid the ultimate price on that beach."

Thank you C. The ‘Screaming Eagle fallen one’ was a hero. To paraphrase the words of the great Sir Winston; never has so much been owed by so many to so few. I am sure you are rightly proud to be named after such a great man.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 8, 2009 5:40 PM

Curtis - Thank you for your words. They are appreciated.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2009 5:47 PM

So this post and the comments are representative of "dispatches from the new world of work"? Really? What a disaster. What has happened to this blog?

Posted by biased-out at June 8, 2009 10:18 PM

Tom, Great post and great discussion that followed (then again I'm biased because I find most of your posts very insightful and the discussions lively).

Posted by Andrew Hayden at June 10, 2009 1:00 PM

Tom Peters - Your instincts are impeccable. I know that there are comments here and in the other posts that if allowed could make some think twice--though never you :-)--about the words they have written. But considering the tragic incident that has happened at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, and the murder of Stephen Tyrone Johns, an African American veteran who was serving as a security officer at the museum protecting many children that were there, I am ever more grateful for this post and this forum. (The suspect blamed "Negroes and Jews.") May God bless the family of Mr. Johns. I am most sorry for their lost. May God protect President Obama and his family. And may we continue to grow in love. God is love.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 10, 2009 4:22 PM

Tom J. made the follwoing comment: "For judges, especially appellate judges, bias and emotional involvement are absolutely not appropriate. They are not supposed to be just, or compassionate .. they are supposed to follow the law, even when it is not just and not compassionate. We need compassion in the executive and legislative branches, not in the judicial branch." let's think about that for a minute. If a judge is not supposed to be just or compassionate in his/her ruling, then why do we need humans to be judges. I am sure there are computer programs out there that can review the facts, analyze the law, apply the appropriate precedents and "bingo"...you have a ruling! Why have nine justices at all. All we need is a big computer.

Posted by Norman at June 11, 2009 6:18 PM

Norman, although I understand the principle you are describing here, the courts themselves indicate their own acknowledgment of humans rethinking the laws themselves. They do so through the process of "jury nullification," whereby a jury can return a verdict of "not guilty" if they feel that although the law has technically been violated, the law itself is questionable. It's rare, but it can and has been done.

If we go back to the issue of the Supreme Court reviewing and ruling on the Constitutionality of laws, given that the framers of the Constitution are no longer present to clarify their reasoning or intended interpretations of the words that form the foundation of our nation's government, laws, and courts, at some point it is inevitable that the Supreme Court Justices must make decisions based on their own thinking and biases just as much as "written law."

If human beings reading the actual words of the laws struggle to apply them, given all the caveats and mitigating factors that often come into play in interpreting and applying laws, I see no way that a computer will ever be able to do it. The law is not based on pure logic. And should not be. Laws are not written for machines, they are written to apply to the actions and conduct of human beings. Human beings do not function on pure logic, so why expect the laws to be totally otherwise?

Laws are based on the mores of society. As has been said "Where mores are sufficient, laws are unnecessary. Where mores are insufficient, laws are unenforceable." Somewhere between those two extremes is where human beings function. Law is no different.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 11, 2009 7:01 PM

Dan, you have just made my point for me...thank you. Justices "must make decisions based on their own thinking and biases..." Their thinking and biases are shaped by their life experience and ethnicity. So I agree with Tom that it is pretty silly for those right wing nuts (Gingrich and Limbaugh) to attack Sotomayor for her ethnicity and - God forbid - empathy! Justice Alito spoke about how his court rulings on immigration cases would be affected by his childhood experience with prejudice against him becasue of his Italian heritage. And that's the way it should be.

Posted by Norman at June 13, 2009 12:02 AM

Norman, I think perhaps a very important underlying point needs to be stressed here: the fact that a bias is not an inherently bad or counterproductive issue. If a person is aware of AND can utilize his or her bias as a tool to recognize former injustices and therefore strengthen their own resolve to apply the law (or workplace policies and procedures, hiring criteria, design and marketing options, an infinite number of things) fairly and equitably, then bias is actually a good thing.

It's when we start applying criteria unfairly (such as in the extreme and misguided applications of "affirmative action" and "quotas") that we get into trouble.

Sotomayor -- as far as I am aware -- has NEVER stated that she would rule in favor of someone simply because of their Latino roots. Rather, she has indicated that she recognizes some related past wrongs and would do something to keep them from being repeated.

I think many misconstrue her passion for "fairness" as a desire for "favoritism." The two are diametrically opposed and I trust that she more than understands the difference and stands on the correct side of that fence.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 13, 2009 11:56 AM

Dan,I agree with you. I was being half facetious when I suggested that all judges be replaced by computers. If those so-called conservatives insist that judges not take into account life experience and empathy, then computer is the way to go. If they can program a computer to defeat a grand master in chess, programming all the judicial factors and decisions into a computer would be a child's play.

By the way, Sotomayo's comment about a "wise latina" with full life experience being able to make better decisions than a white person (not wise) without the same life experience is a simple statement of fact. It is like saying that a white person with a Ph.D. in math can perform mathematical calculations better than a black high school drop out. Is that a racist statement? I think not. The "white" and "black" labels can also be switched around and the statement would still be true. It has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with life experience and education.

Posted by Norman at June 14, 2009 12:05 PM

Norman, agreed. And I think we should further take into account the very definition of "judgment." Nearly every definition in the dictionary includes the word "opinion." Computers don't formulate opinions. Nothing but 1's and 0's -- adding and subtracting. In order to SIMULATE opinion rendering, human beings would still have to create the LOGIC based on their OPINION of how it could best be done.

Back to square one, ey?

On your other thoughts, I don't see Sotomayor as racist. I see her as having just what you pointed out: life experience.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 14, 2009 12:15 PM

Dan - the world of artificial intelligence has advanced much since I was in college back in the late 60s. I am sure some scientist at MIT or Caltech has already figured out how to simulate opinion rendering.

Posted by Norman at June 14, 2009 5:36 PM

Norman, I wouldn't doubt you're right. But then again, if we humans can't agree on "human" opinion rendering, I doubt they'll perfect it in a machine. But I'm sure they're trying somewhere. But that's just my opinion. LOL.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 14, 2009 6:54 PM

Assessment must be implemented ONLY and ONLY ALONE on the technical and scientific basis and evidence that will form the MERITS, clearly 150% respectful of any other POVs.

A HUMAN comes packaged in many forms. All forms are equally important.

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at June 14, 2009 10:20 PM