Comments

Hmm, two rather different topics in the two posts as I see them. The earlier post stresses the benefit of diversity, the latter one the benefit of self-awareness. Both touch on gender (and other) differences, but as a means of reaching two distinct and equally valid conclusions.

Posted by RobCH at June 8, 2009 9:58 AM

The issue, in my view, is not about gender, race, economic status, or ethnicity, it is about the application of the law. Regardless of a judges background, I expect objectivity and fairness in their analysis and opinions, especially from the Supreme Court.

Posted by Jim Outland at June 8, 2009 10:02 AM

Yes, Jim, I agree. But isn't it strange that the conversation in the media is not about the "application of the law" with regards to her vast body of rulings, but about comments that she made that have been similiarily made by sitting justices?

The reality is that Judge Sotomayor was confirmed for the Appeals Court by Republicans and Democrats alike because she was qualified. We would be so honored to have her serve on the Supreme Court.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2009 10:46 AM

"I expect objectivity and fairness"

As others have implied:

9 Justices.
9 definitins of objectivity.
9 definitions of fairness.

And:

1 hearty "praise be" from me.

Add:

9 readings of the framers' intent.
9 readings on the importance-relevance of the framers' intent.

(If the center of a 9 point scale is 5, an American of strong political views would doubtless say that the 9 Justices views run from 1 to 9. A person from Mars would likely say the same 9 Justices' views range from 4.8 to 5.2.)

Posted by tom peters at June 8, 2009 11:02 AM

Not a martian who knows the difference between large and small sample sizes.

Posted by dan at June 8, 2009 11:07 AM

Great point, TP.

dan, please explain yours.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2009 11:19 AM

Presumably there are 9 Justices precisely because there are many different possible interpretations of the law, even within the bounds of objectivity and fairness.

Posted by RobCH at June 8, 2009 11:35 AM

Yes, Rob. I was just trying to understand dan's point.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2009 12:01 PM

Bias exists in the way history is being taught in schools today. Let's erase some of the more ugly portions of American History (slavery, etc.). Let's deny that the Holocaust even existed during the WWII. How about this for diversity? When African leaders, at the time, realized they could benefit (financially) from the sale of their own race, they begin to round up Africans at the time and selling them to Europeans; so Europeans could just pull into port and trade...very much an "accepted" custom at the time. Wrong as we look back and study history. Slavery had been around forever (Israelites, etc.); yet, it's presented as a White Man's problem by many people, Spike Lee----40 Acres and a Mule, Rodney King----can't we all just get along? (what a joke), OJ and his largely African American jury---was race at work?. The officers were beating Rodney because they were racist, not because he'd been joy riding through suburbs at over 100 mph doped up. Wasn't Reginald Denny pulled from his truck solely because of race and nearly beaten to death? Wasn't that racist? Oh no, it was retaliation and an angry mob.

TP----maybe we should focus on the two Asian Americans that were just sentenced in North Korea. Huge problems there for women, Asians, and Americans. NK is holding them as bartering tools for the UN table. Even the Russians and Chinese believe NK is acting irrational. Time to invade to protect the very freedoms of what we're all blogging about. Send in special ops and pull those women out.

Has the media ever been unbiased or presented an "application of law" in the right format? PBS gets the closest...unfortunately, this blog/commentary misses the mark in many cases. Very much in favor of women...and by being in favor of women...is biased in and of itself and its format.

Posted by Scott Peters at June 8, 2009 12:11 PM

Scott Peters - You're gonna be just fine.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2009 1:11 PM

I think we are actually avoiding the real reason why its important we have Judge Sotomayor on the bench. First, she is likely left of center (that only matters to people who are left of center like me)
Second, she is a latina who has achieved as much as anyone who seeks the job of Supreme Court Justice. Identity politics is exactly the reason to choose her over a equally qualified white person. We need role models for struggling minority groups in this country. People need to know what is possible and this would be an example of what is possible. This occurred to me as I was watching Michele Obama in a classroom - she knows what struggling kids are going through and connects with them. The Obama's, for many reasons, are the best first family to occupy the white house since I've been alive. Barack absolutely should be president no matter what, but I think the effect he and his family will have on the country will be at least as profound as anything else he does. Last fall, I was reading what teachers had observed in inner city classrooms. Students are taking school more seriously because of the role model Barack presents. If these kids take school seriously, the deficit will go down just because many more kids will be successful and not wind up in jail or starting families too early. Given all the other achievements of Judge Sotomayor, identity politics is an excellent reason to confirm her.

Posted by dan at June 8, 2009 1:25 PM

Yes, there are several different topics in the two posts. But there is evidence that males and females do things differently.

Posted by cathy mosca at June 8, 2009 1:38 PM

I found this in my Yahoo account.
Brain science takes on liberals/conservatives.
http://acedmagazine.com/aced-bloggers-mainmenu-54/117-political-blog/3392-does-slime-gross-you-out-you-may-be-a-conservative

Posted by dan at June 8, 2009 1:50 PM

The article above suggests a test of diversity during a job interview to get a good representation people with differing political views.
The interviewer should puke during the interview and take notes on the interviewee's behavior.

Posted by dan at June 8, 2009 2:01 PM

As will everyone else...

How about this for bias/hypocrisy depending on how one looks at things?

TP enjoys the successes (financially and otherwise), since the 60's, of largely white, male dominated business practices and teachings. Even though, at least until Affirmative Action comes into play, people of minority were not provided the same opportunities as others, even in the midst of others benefitting to a large degree. The system TP grew up in has largely collapsed and nearly yielded another Great Depression.

Civil Rights, Affirmative Action, equal rights converge to produce new ideas and better opportunities for everyone...almost everyone (everyone but the biggots that benefitted in 60's, 70's, & 80's) With that, a great big bandwagon begins rolling that suggests women may be more compassionate as business leaders (you think? scientific I tell you!)----I thought that's why they made better teachers, caregivers, and troop leaders. In the realities of today, men are tired of working long days and dealing with office politics, so they're happy to have their wives take over in a miserable business climate (raising kids looks like a wonderful option!---women will have better opportunities anyway).

Trends begin to develop and Larry King, in all of his dopey wisdom. says that his kid wants to be Black when he grows up (shortly after Obama is elected). Wow...is that pandering or for real? I want to be Black when I grow up...not a fireman, policeman, teacher, Miley Cyrus, etc.; "I want to be Black when I grow up."

Do we really have gender/race bias and issues when Larry King's kid wants to be Black when he grows up? I mean, I remember wanting to be MJ when I was growing up in the backyard, but I wasn't very good at hitting the shot at the buzzer; I couldn't dunk either. I still enjoyed trying to be like Mike. Mike was one of my heroes.

As they say in England, cut your wanker off and begin hormone replacement therapy and you may change the very nature of how your body operates and your mind works; should you so desire. You may even, if lucky, become a better manager; even though some may wonder why your mustache is thicker than some of the males in the office. Or better yet, your travels may take you to far away places (North Korea) and you may become a prisoner for several years because of your drive to get the scoop on how those people live, with so little to live for.

Posted by Scott Peters at June 8, 2009 3:59 PM

Should we be talking about bias and diversity or should we be talking about toleration?

Posted by Mark JF at June 8, 2009 4:12 PM

Mark JF---how about business?

Posted by Scott Peters at June 8, 2009 4:21 PM

Not to add any more paranoia to you, Scott Peters, but it appears that you will be a minority by the year of 2042. Perhaps my niece will then want to be a Latina.

Take a few deep breaths, Scott. You're gonna be fine. Just breathe...

Nextgenradio mentioned in the post over the weekend that this discussion wasn't about "identity politics but control." Scott continues to prove this astute point with each comment.

Posted by Judith Ellisk at June 8, 2009 4:27 PM

MarkJF - Please explain.

Posted by Judith Ellisk at June 8, 2009 4:30 PM

Oopps. Don't won't to control the blog or give anybody the impression that I may be taking over. Others have proudly assumed that role from my perspective.

Posted by Scott Peters at June 8, 2009 4:33 PM

Laura Bush, our beautiful and gracious former first lady praises First Lady Michelle Obama and Judge Sotomayor, saying about that latter that she wishes her much success. What a class act the former first lady has always been. I have always admired her.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2009 4:38 PM

Hopefully your niece will want to be an American, or better yet, themselves instead of something else by 2042

Posted by Scott Peters at June 8, 2009 4:41 PM

What's wrong with being a Latina?

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2009 4:42 PM

Actually, I take that back. We'll have the technologies to be Black, White, Male, Female, Latina and made to order by then. Your niece can be whatever she wants to be through genetic manipulation. Larry King's kid can probably afford to be Black if he so chooses.

Posted by Scott Peters at June 8, 2009 4:43 PM

Are you breathing, Scott?

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2009 4:45 PM

What if she wants to be a man?

Posted by Scott Peters at June 8, 2009 4:47 PM

I never said there was anything wrong with being Latina (read my response); these are merely your biases or assumptions. Your rewriting my thoughts, as you typically do...which gives credence to my earlier posts. Thanks.

Tell me, what is wrong with Latinas?

Posted by Scott Peters at June 8, 2009 4:50 PM

By the way...is there a difference between Judith Ellis and Judith Ellisk? Are multiple people assuming identities as JE?

Once again...biases and nonsense. Who's who in the nuthouse is what I want to know!

Posted by Scott Peters at June 8, 2009 4:54 PM

Look...I can post as Tom Peters. How cool!

Posted by Tom Peters at June 8, 2009 4:58 PM

Your words Scott literally made me laugh aloud. I see that I have worked you up. LOL!

BTW - I knew a brilliant transgender woman when I was a PhD student and she was a wonderful person. I loved her.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2009 4:58 PM

So Judith, this is Tom, can you please reply to Scott's statement that you were biased when you read into his post and asked him what was wrong with Latinas...when that wasn't his statement at all.

To continue blogging, please do so, or else I'll have you removed from the blog!!!!!

Posted by Tom Peters at June 8, 2009 5:01 PM

LOL, Scott Peters!!! Good one! But are you taking your meds, man???

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2009 5:03 PM

I can be C Love too! but I'm not quite as witty and I'd come off as a fraud!

Posted by C Love at June 8, 2009 5:03 PM

Why don't you answer my question? Your comment was biased and you assumed that I had something against Latinas. I was merely offering another perspective. You assumed that I had a problem with Latinas. Many may consider this biased or racist. I'm showing you how silly much of this shit is.

Game...set...match. Unless you want to fess up...

Posted by Scott Peters at June 8, 2009 5:05 PM

Thank you for the friendship Judith, I very much valued our special connection as well!!!!

---I can even be your transgender friend!

Posted by JE's Transgender Friend at June 8, 2009 5:07 PM

Either Cathy will have to do a lot of deleting or else she'll find this funny.

I believe that I've made my biased argument (pun intended)

Posted by Scott Peters at June 8, 2009 5:09 PM

I don't know what Cathy will think of it or do but the only point that you have proven here is that you are a nut case! Totally whacked! You have given me a big belly laugh! LOL! This is what weak men do when they can't win. They stonewall or fill the space with loud senseless noise then try to wrap it up neatly. You have already shown your weakness, my regressive one.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2009 5:20 PM

You didn't answer my question, as you insist others do with bullet points, etc. when you want answers or clarification. You merely call me a weak man, and I have not called you anything, which says more than words in my opinion.

You have discussed kicking my butt, how I'm not credible, and denounced me for the past several weeks. I believe some of your comments were even deleted.

Let other people be the judge, but I believe I've made my point without disparaging you directly. And for that, I guess, you win.

Posted by Scott Peters at June 8, 2009 5:26 PM

You want me to actually take you serious? YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS? LOL! Scott, you are a joke.
I'm laughing so hard that my head hurts! Keep 'em coming!

BTW - All comments still there! LOL!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2009 5:43 PM

Keep the disparaging remarks coming...you're in a corner, true colors. Keep it up...

I'm a joke. That's a good one. Keep it coming. What else?

Posted by Scott Peters at June 8, 2009 5:46 PM

LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! Scott Peters!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2009 5:49 PM

That's all you got? I'm disappointed...typically you write chapters and chapters of stuff. LOL..how about a few LMAO's, etc.

Posted by The Joker at June 8, 2009 5:54 PM

Sorry to disappoint, Scott! LMAO! I'm off for my bike ride. Wanna beat the ran! But I'll think of you as I pass the zoo and the cage of asses. (Beautiful route!) Just Kidding, man! That reminds me of a story my brother told of a man in Texas preaching that said that "Jesus came riding into Galilee on the ass of a donkey." Of course, the "ass" in the Bible was the donkey itself. Unbeknownst to the preacher man, he had just sworn on the pulpit to which the congregants responded in typical call and respond fashion, "Yes, Lord!" LOL! Perhaps not to some. But our family got a good laugh out of it! I'm off! Tires pumped! Hat on!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2009 6:12 PM

Former first lady Laura Bush says she's pleased that President Obama nominated a woman for the Supreme Court.

"I think she sounds like a very interesting and good nominee," Bush said of Sonia Sotomayor. "As a woman, I'm proud that there might be another woman on the court. I wish her well."

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2009 7:46 PM

Scott and Judith,
As I'm sure you've noticed, we try to delete as few comments as possible here at tompeters.com as Tom is a very strong supporter of the freedom of speech. That said, I would encourage you to use your own identity, not a false one, and comment on Tom's post rather than trying to provoke one another.
Thank you.

Posted by Shelley Dolley at June 8, 2009 8:12 PM

Sure thing, Shelley. I'm basically having a bit of fun here. But I shall do exactly as you have asked. I must also say that I have only posted comments in my own name linked to my own blog. But I do hear you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2009 8:25 PM

Hi Cathy, no disagreement from me on the different approaches of males and females. Always interesting to see it in action. My point, however, at the risk of pedantry, was about what happens next. Simplifying a bit, Tom's earlier post was about recognising the advantages of diversity and proposed a specific action: build diverse teams - they perform better. The second was about recognising our own inherent (nature plus nurture) biases, preconceptions and assumptions, and proposed a different specific action - Know Thyself. This to me is a much deeper topic, and much harder work, than the first. And, I would argue, while gender or race or age or sexuality may contribute to our biases, the topic is about more than any one of them. Hence my attempt at distinction.

Posted by RobCH at June 9, 2009 12:53 AM

Dear Cathy,

Thank you for revisiting subjects that you and Tom consider wise. In that direction, I am always making new researching but not without studuying in depth prominent literature issued and/or published by good authors. I have a second copy, say, to Tom's books as I do with some other authors.

So, go ahead and ventilate any subject matter that you consider important. And thank you for your permanent work and that of Tom.

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at June 13, 2009 5:21 AM

Good comment, Andy. There are a few books in my library that I have bought twice as every page is so full of notes that I have no more room to write in the margins.

Insight is interesting. It comes at various stages of personal and scientific development. So, where we thought we had exhausted a subject matter changes in a different time based on research and our own experiences.

Thanks for your comment. It's a thoughtful one.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 13, 2009 10:25 AM

Andy and Judith, good observations on both your parts. I know that there are a few people who cry out words like "Tom has been saying the same thing for XX years..." But that tells me that perhaps they are missing the point. Tom's ideas (and those of many others) are actually built on underlying principles that simply don't change. As I've said before, the context might evolve over time, but if the content is built on solid ideas (which they are) then the content is as applicable today as it was 25 years ago.

It doesn't matter whether you're talking about a caveman stepping off a cliff or a building collapsing from poor engineering, gravity is still gravity, right? Grasp the "gravity" part, and the caveman version of the story still works for me, because I "get it."

Shifting gears a bit, it might be interesting in light of the thoughts you two shared if we could find out not only how many copies of a book is sold, but to how many individuals they were sold. I know I've bought multiple copies of some of Tom's books (and a few other authors) to give as gifts and reference materials for friends, associates, and clients.

A new metric for book sales, perhaps: C(S)/B = Copies Sold to Buyers.

I think that would more accurately reflect the perceived USEFULNESS of a book, whereas "copies sold" might be more a measure of simple curiosity. canadian pharmacies viagra

Just more of my offbeat thinking. I am the brand called "Me." Or as some might say, "The brand called 'HUH?'" I feel no shame in that. LOL.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 13, 2009 11:39 AM

Judith and Dan, thank you for your kind inputs. You're both doing an extraordinary work over this blog. Thanks!

-Andy

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at June 14, 2009 9:26 PM

Andres, please make checks payable to us at...

LOL. I have to admit that Tom Peters was largely (if not solely) responsible for lighting a fire under me about a quarter century ago (gulp) that has never died out. We all tend to formulate different opinions of (and approaches to) the things Tom, Steve Yastrow, and perhaps others talk about on this site. That's the beauty of it. Just as a beautiful mountain might look totally different if you look at it from different points of view. You can't map that mountain and get a real feel for it if you don't.

But the one thing that will never change for me is the desire to love what I'm doing and do what I love. That includes work. And I love making my work the best it can be for my clients.

Thank you to Tom, Steve, and all the friends on here that share that passion and further kindle that flame.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 15, 2009 12:40 PM