Wednesday, November 26, 2008

"A Call To Action"

Janice; a Democracy In Suffrage member wants to let us know that Senator Saxby Chambliss could use our help. If interested please make phone calls for Senator Chambliss. Saxby Chambliss won the November election, but because he did not get 50% of the vote, there will be a run off. Georgia law requires a candidate to get 50% to be declared victor. Since there was so many candidates running for the senate office 3 to be exact, Chambliss got 49.8, Martin 46.8, Buckley 3.4, December 2 is the election day, this weekend is ideal for phone calls to get out that vote...
Senator Saxby Chambliss campaign link below...

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Happy Thanksgiving

Hope all the members of Democracy In Suffrage and fellow followers, Have a truely wonderful Holiday...

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

"Blog Talk Radio"

Betty Jean Kling

Women Issues & More...

Fighting for the ERA and then some...

FreeUsNowMavericks Radio Mondays 8pm est
Link is -
Call-in Number: (347) 838-8011

Saturday, November 15, 2008


Funeral Services set for Lt. Governor Catherine Baker Knoll...

Nov. 13, 2008 Sean T. Pendrak


HARRISBURG – Funeral arrangements for Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor Catherine Baker Knoll, who died Wednesday after a four-month battle with cancer, have been made.

The Lieutenant Governor will lie in repose in the Capitol Rotunda in Harrisburg from noon, Friday, Nov. 21, to 2 p.m., Saturday, Nov. 22.

She will return home to her beloved Pittsburgh on Sunday, Nov. 23, where she will lie in repose from 1 p.m. – 5 p.m. at St. Paul’s Cathedral, 108 N Dithridge St.

The public is welcome to attend a Mass of Christian Burial at St. Paul’s at noon, Tuesday, Nov. 25. Interment will be private.

The family humbly requests that, in lieu of flowers, donations be made to the Lieutenant Governor’s favorite charity, Angel’s Place, 2615 Norwood Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15214 (888-975-6667) or

"Here We Go Again"

Lawsuit number seventeen filed in Superior Court California, Sacramento County
Ambasador Alan Keyes; Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr. ; and Markham Robinson
Case No.: 34-200880000096-CUWM-GDS

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen; Senator Barack Hussien Obama, Senator Joe Biden, California Democratic Electors: Aleita Huguenin, Lou Paulson, Ian Blue, Mark Cibula, Richard Hundriesier, Lawerence DuBois, Mark Friedman, Mary Hubart, Fred Jackson, LeRoy King, Roberta Brooks, Audrey Gordon, Michael McNerney, Nancy Parrish, James Farley, John Freidenrich, Jeremy Nishirhara, Jaime Alvarado, Vinz Koller, Gregory Olzack, David Sanchez, Larry Sheingold, Stephen Smith, Mark Maccaro, Nathan Brostrom, Robert Bob Handey, Robert Conaway, Greg Warner, Lane Sherman, Ilene Huber, Kenneth Sulzer, Sanford Weiner, Ana Degaldo Mascarenas, Joe Perez, Gwen Moore, Anthony Rendon, Karen Waters, Kelley Willis, Silissa Uriarte-Smith, Norma Torres, Alma Marquez, Ray Cordova, Patrick Kahler, Aurani Thakur, Joe Baca, Jr., Juadina Stallings, Betty McMillion, William Ayers, Gregory Willenborg, James Yedor, Bobby Glaser, Mary Keadle, Frank Salazar, Christine Young, Sid Voorakkara, and DOES 1-100

Once again all above are embroiled once again of eligibility of Senator Barack Hussein Obama.
American Tax Payers money is being wasted. When is the courts going to step in and say where is the birth certificate? We need to ask very nicely that the Supreme Court of the land to do something now period. How many lawsuits need to be filed before someone said that this is a valid argument...

You may write to Justice Thomas at the following address:The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence ThomasUnited States Supreme CourtOne First Street, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20543. Also write toChief Justice RobertsUnited States Supreme CourtOne First Street, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20543Unlike Mr. Berg’s case, Mr. Donofrio’s case has standing. This may be just the case to bring down Obama. Let’s all do what lies in our power to help him win this important court case.

Friday, November 14, 2008

"Action Please"

I agree with this post we need to do all we can do to help further the cause. We need to get the justices to hear this case, and take it serious. There are now like 8-9 states that have lawsuits it is time one of them is taken serious...

Please Help Leo Donofrio with his case challenging Obama is not a “natural born citizen.” As we speak efforts are going on within the Supreme Court to suppress Mr. Donofrio’s document.Call TODAY!US Supreme Court Clerk’s Office - 202-479-3011US Supreme Court, Public Information Office - 202-479-3211Explain to them you are not pleased at the way they are handling Case #08A407.It is also important that Justice Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Supreme Court receive direct mail letters (not e-mail)Include:Case Docket #08A407 and in your letter. You may write to Justice Thomas at the following address:The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence ThomasUnited States Supreme CourtOne First Street, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20543. Also write toChief Justice RobertsUnited States Supreme CourtOne First Street, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20543Unlike Mr. Berg’s case, Mr. Donofrio’s case has standing. This may be just the case to bring down Obama. Let’s all do what lies in our power to help him win this important court case.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

"Women's Rights are Human Rights"

I am reaching out to all, if you believe Women's rights are human rights then you will find yourself at this rally on Saturday. Democracy In Suffrage got their work cut out for them in Harrisburg. January 2009 will be the big kick off of meeting legislature in Harrisburg to kick start the campaign for equal pay for equal work. We need everyone we can get to join our forces. This is a good opportunity to extend the hand. If you believe in the Constitution of the United States of America you will be there. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton herself march proudly in the Pride Parade in New York. Governor Sarah Palin passed the domestic partnership benefits in Alaska, and when pushed came to shove I heard even Senator John McCain said if he was President and a bill came across the desk, he would have to sign it cause it is Constitutional. I want you to show you can look beyond, and show if this was your child that rights for them would be equal, just like the long fight for equality for womens rights...
Sincerely Ms. Matthews

There are going to be nationwide protests against the Anti-Equality California Prop 8 at 1:30pm EST this Saturday. In case you want to join in, it looks like there will be folks protesting at the City County building Downtown (414 Grant St Pittsburgh, PA 15219) and at Shenley Plaza in Oakland (4100 Forbes Ave - Between Carnegie Library and Hillman Library). There is more information at:
also on Facebook.
This is not a Stonewall Democrats event; I'm just passing information along.
Also, here is a cool editorial broadcast from MSNBC:

Kris Rust
President, Steel City Stonewall Democrats

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Lt. Governor Passes

November 12, 2008
Chuck Ardo(717) 783-1116

Governor Rendell Announces the Passing of Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll

HARRISBURG - Governor Edward G. Rendell tonight announced the passing of Lieutenant Governor Catherine Baker Knoll.
“On behalf of all Pennsylvania, Midge and I extend heart-felt sympathy to Catherine’s family,” Governor Rendell said. “Today we mourn the passing of one of the strongest, most dedicated public servants in Pennsylvania’s history. Our thoughts and prayers are with Catherine’s family. She will be deeply missed.
“Even as she fought cancer in recent months, she remained upbeat and dedicated to serving the commonwealth,” he said. “Catherine was a very passionate and exuberant advocate for many worthy causes. Her passing is a tremendous loss for the many people whose lives she touched.”
Knoll died Wednesday at approximately 6 p.m. at National Rehabilitation Hospital in Washington, D.C., where she was recovering from treatment for neuroendocrine cancer. She was surrounded by her family.
Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, Knoll will be replaced as Lieutenant Governor by the Senate President Pro Tempore, Joseph B. Scarnati III (R-Jefferson).
As lieutenant governor, Knoll played a vital role in addressing a variety of issues of critical importance to the people of Pennsylvania. She was particularly proud of her accomplishment of creating of TAP 529 Pennsylvania Tuition Account Program, which has since been renamed ‘nowU.’ She was also instrumental in issues including emergency management, domestic preparedness, economic development and local government. She served as the president of the Senate and chairwoman of the Board of Pardons, the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Council, and the Local Government Advisory Committee.
Knoll was sworn in on Jan. 21, 2003, as Pennsylvania’s 30th lieutenant governor; the first woman elected to the post.
A native of Allegheny County, Knoll, 78, devoted her life to public service, first as a school teacher and business woman and later advancing issues such as finance, transportation, housing, education, environmental work, human rights, small business development, and urban and rural revitalization efforts.
She contributed to her community through her longstanding service to the Pennsylvania Federation of Democratic Women, Federal Home Loan Bank Board of Pittsburgh, YMCA, Boys and Girls Clubs, Angel’s Place, the NAACP, Elder Care, Inc., Pennsylvania Nature Conservancy and the Pittsburgh Golden Triangle.
Knoll spearheaded a number of initiatives to promote safety and prosperity for Pennsylvanians of all ages.
She was a strong supporter of Project ChildSafe, which reminded gun owners to properly store firearms in the home to prevent a loaded firearm from falling into the hands of a child. Project ChildSafe distributed millions of free safety kits including cable-style gun locking devices and safety education materials at major public events.
Knoll was a strong advocate for Dress for Success South Central PA which helps disadvantaged women enter the workforce in the south central Pennsylvania region.
She was an active member of the NLGA (National Lieutenant Governors Association), working on substantive policy issues and international missions - work that is an accurate reflection of the growing role of the office of lieutenant governor. Knoll worked with other members on items ranging from education reform and international trade to health care and federalism issues. She spearheaded Pennsylvania’s participation as one of 10 states involved in NLGA’s education campaign regarding cervical cancer, beginning in August of 2006 — “Ending Cervical Cancer in our Lifetime.”
She also helped foster collaboration among academia, industry, government agencies and technical support organizations promote the Strengthening the Mid-Atlantic Region for Tomorrow, or SMART, regional alliance with Maryland, New Jersey and Delaware. SMART promotes the Mid-Atlantic region’s technical enterprise and intellectual vitality for the economic benefit of the region.
Knoll served eight distinguished years as State Treasurer. During her tenure, she implemented and maintained the highest standards of accountability and integrity. She also kept Pennsylvania ahead of the technology curve by building a high-tech investment center that saved Pennsylvania hundred of millions of dollars through increased efficiency and returned nearly $2 billion in interest.
Honored by organizations throughout the nation for her leadership, she accumulated a long list of firsts, among them: First woman appointed to the AFL-CIO Housing and Building Board of Trustees, Chairwoman of the Pension Committee of the National Association of State Treasurers, and various small business loan programs for women and minorities.
As Lieutenant Governor she received additional accolades in the past five years from the Greater Washington County Food Bank, Honorary Board Member, Friend of PA Harness Racing Commission, PA Prison Society Humanitarian of The Year Award, promoting a strategic alliance with DE, MD, NJ, and PA, YWCA Greater Pittsburgh Women of the Year Award, Chapel of the Four Chaplains Gold Medal Award, Circle of Excellence First Women Elected to The Office of The Lieutenant Governor, Philadelphia AIDS Consortium, State Library Rare Book Room Outstanding Support.
Knoll’s late husband, Charles, was a U.S. Postmaster. Their four children, Charles, Mina, Albert, and Kim Eric, are all adult professionals in their own right.
Knoll was the daughter of Nicholas and Teresa Baker. She was educated at Saint Mary’s High School in McKees Rocks, Duquesne University, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.
The Rendell administration is committed to creating a first-rate public education system, protecting our most vulnerable citizens and continuing economic investment to support our communities and businesses. To find out more about Governor Rendell's initiatives and to sign up for his weekly newsletter, visit: .
Home » Media Center

“I loved” Catherine Baker Knoll; I did not always agree with her position but I respected the woman's tenacity. I was honored to talk to her at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner here in Pittsburgh. I will always remember when Onarato, and Ravenstahl tried to push her in the back, and she did not have it, or stand for it, and pushed right back to announce Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, President William Jefferson Clinton to the stage at a rally. I admired her moxie when people counted her out, she came back and shined. I also remember working on campaigns were she was involved and she would have Jenny Lee treats brought over for all. I will miss her and her spirit she brought to everything. She fought to break new ground for women here in the Commonwealth. I can only thank her for the fighter she was and hope some of that is in her children. Lieutenant Governor Catherine Baker Knoll first women in the State of Pennsylvania to be the Lieutenant Governor we salute you, and will miss you.
Sincerely Ms. Matthews

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

"Remember Our Veterans"

Veterans and all who served...
Top Photo is Senator John McCain with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton ( Yes to contrary to popular belief Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has gone into war zones), Senator McCain who gave so much to serve our country, and the females who also gave up their lives from the Civil War to the War in Iraq they serve. "Gave Up" their life so others could live in freedom. Whom ever wears the uniform who defended the United States of America from the most diverse LGBT community, to the Buffalo Soldiers, The WACS, and the like...
"We Commend You"
" We Thank You"
for your service to our country..

Monday, November 10, 2008

"Let's Review"

Middle Photo Hitler's, The hands of the F├╝hrer organize his speech. This picture captures Hitler's hands as he speaks of the unity of the National Socialist and socialist ideas.

Bottom Photo Obama Supporters show the hands of Unity...

"This Is What The Democratic Party Did On November 4, 2008”

*It was Democrats that voted against GLBT rights in 4 states

*It was Democrats that voted against two very strong and capable women

*It was Democrats that attacked two very strong women with vicious sexism

*It was Democrats that found the attacks on freedom of speech acceptable (truth squads)

*It was Democrats that applauded unfair and unethical election practices (primaries)

*It was Democrats that abandoned campaign finance reform

*It was Democrats that conducted a questionable war on the sanctity of the vote (acorn, Ohio)

Prop 8, Obama Once again gave mixed messages, but the last two weeks they essentially supported the measure, how so you asked, well the most significant is the mailer that went out with his face all over it with quotes of Obama adamant support to ban Gay Marriage...
Once again Obama does not care about rights of others...

Proposition 8 Supporters Use Obama In MailerSAN FRANCISCO (AP) ― The sponsors of a ballot initiative that would make same-sex marriage illegal in California are using quotes by Barack Obama to drum up support for Proposition 8, even though Obama opposes the measure.A mailer sent out by the coalition this week features a large picture of Obama. The mailer also presents statements the Illinois senator made this year indicating that he personally thinks marriage should be limited to a woman and man.One of the quotes, "I'm not in favor of gay marriage," came from Obama's April appearance on "Hardball with Chris Matthews." During that interview, Obama went on to say "...but I'm in favor of a very strong civil union." The second was from an August forum at Saddleback Church in La Mesa, where Obama said that as a Christian, he considered marriage "a sacred union."The campaign to defeat Prop. 8 denounced the mailers as a "dirty trick" designed to mislead African American voters who are Obama supporters. The mailer also includes endorsements from four African American pastors."The Proposition 8 campaign has had a record of shameful lies and trying to trick voters. This is yet another example of that," spokesman Fred Sainz said Friday.The No on 8 campaign called on to stop circulating the piece and released a statement from the Obama campaign repeating that while he favors civil unions for gay couples, but thinks the measure is discriminatory."Senator Obama has already announced that the Obama-Biden ticket opposes Proposition 8 and similar discriminatory constitutional amendments that could roll back the civil rights he and Senator Biden strongly believe should be afforded to all Americans," campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said in the statement.Jeff Flint, co-manager, said there was nothing misleading about quoting Obama in the mailer."The mailer doesn't say he is in favor of 8, It quotes him on things he has said. That's indisputable," Flint said. "I'm sure they are upset we quote the Democratic nominee for president word for word on things he said."The race over Prop. 8 has tightened over the last six weeks and Tuesday's vote is expected to be close. A Field Poll released Friday found 49 percent of likely voters oppose the ban and 44 percent favor it. In mid-September, the measure was losing by 17 points.

"Obama's Idea on Education"

South Florida, Sun Sentinel...
Earth to Obama: Dream on
October 19, 2008
Taken a good look at the education proposals on Barack Obama's Web site? I've been educated as a reading specialist and have been an education activist for more than a decade, but Obama's promises make me very nervous. Does public education need improvement? You bet. Does throwing more money at it help? Not according to the statistics in Washington, D.C., where the per-student cost is higher than most, yet there has been little or no improvement in student achievement. Yet Obama's dozens of ideas are very expensive. Here are a few: Obama will reform No Child Left Behind by funding it. He wants to double the funding for after-school programs. He will create grants to promote voluntary universal pre-school. He will increase Head Start funding. He will provide affordable and high-quality child care. He wants to recruit science and math professionals to teach teachers how to teach. He wants to extend the teachers' day to help the drop-out crisis. He wants to make community college free for most students.
updated 4:06 p.m. ET, Tues., July. 1, 2008
CHICAGO - Reaching out to religious voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama called for expanding President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — supported some ability to hire and fire based on faith.
(Note: The Associated Press initially reported Obama supports "their (faith-based organizations') ability to hire and fire based on faith." NBC reports the campaign says Obama's plan would prevent organizations from discriminating based on faith. The Associated Press changed its wording to say, "some ability to hire and fire based on faith." The campaign says this second version is still inaccurate.)
Obama unveiled his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services.
"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama said.
Obama's announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday's Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.
The candidate spent Monday talking about his vision of patriotism in the battleground state of Missouri. By twinning that with Tuesday's talk about faith in another battleground state, he was attempting to settle debate in two key areas where his beliefs have come under question while also trying to make inroads with constituencies that are traditionally loyal to Republicans and oppose Obama on other grounds.
But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions could invite a protest from those in his own party who view such faith requirements as discrimination.
Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.
Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, criticized Obama's proposed expansion of a program he said has undermined civil rights and civil liberties.
"I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration," he said. "It ought to be shut down, not continued."
John DiIulio, who in 2001 was director of Bush's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said Obama's plan "reminds me of much that was best in both then Vice President Al Gore's and then Texas Governor George W. Bush's respective first speeches on the subject in 1999," according to a statement from the Obama campaign.
Bush supports broader freedoms for taxpayer-funded religious charities. But he never got Congress to go along so he has conducted the program through administrative actions and executive orders.
David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position on hiring has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.
This is a reference to Bill Clinton's accusation in his 1992 presidential campaign that the hip hop artist incited violence against whites. Because Clinton said this before a black audience, it fed into an image of him as a bold politician who was willing to take risks and refused to pander.
"This is a massive deal," said Kuo, who is not an Obama adviser or supporter but was contacted by the campaign to review the new plan.
Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.
Saying social service spending has been shortchanged under Bush, he also proposes a $500 million per year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students. A campaign fact sheet said he would pay for it by better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process.
Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.
Once again this is a Socialistic idea to put Federal government control over a failing system like “No Child Left Behind” or better said nobody left a dime. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and others all say this program needs scraped. Throwing money at bad is still bad.

Michelle's Boot Camps For Radicals
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Democrats' reintroduction of militant Michelle Obama in Denver was supposed to show her softer side. But it only highlighted a radical part of her resume: Public Allies.Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service."
Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of "social change."
The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn't seem all that radical. It promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year "community leadership" positions with nonprofit or government agencies. They'll also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats.
In exchange, they'll get a monthly stipend of up to $1,800, plus paid health and child care. They also get a post-service education award of $4,725 that can be used to pay off past student loans or fund future education.
But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation — the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul "The Red" Alinsky.
"Our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to . . . engage in protest activities," Public Allies boasts in a document found with its tax filings. It has already deployed an army of 2,200 community organizers like Obama to agitate for "justice" and "equality" in his hometown of Chicago and other U.S. cities, including Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Washington. "I get to practice being an activist," and get paid for it, gushed Cincinnati recruit Amy Vincent.
Public Allies promotes "diversity and inclusion," a program paper says. More than 70% of its recruits are "people of color." When they're not protesting, they're staffing AIDS clinics, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare.
Public Allies brags that more than 80% of graduates have continued working in nonprofit or government jobs. It's training the "next generation of nonprofit leaders" — future "social entrepreneurs."
The Obamas discourage work in the private sector. "Don't go into corporate America," Michelle has exhorted youth. "Work for the community. Be social workers." Shun the "money culture," Barack added. "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation."
"If you commit to serving your community," he pledged in his Denver acceptance speech, "we will make sure you can afford a college education." So, go through government to go to college, and then go back into government.
Many of today's youth find the pitch attractive. "I may spend the rest of my life trying to create social movement," said Brian Coovert of the Cincinnati chapter. "There is always going to be work to do. Until we have a perfect country, I'll have a job."
Not all the recruits appreciate the PC indoctrination. "It was too touchy-feely," said Nelly Nieblas, 29, of the 2005 Los Angeles class. "It's a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias."
One of those -isms is "heterosexism," which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of "capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege."
The government now funds about half of Public Allies' expenses through Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military, he said.
The gall of it: The Obamas want to create a boot camp for radicals who hate the military — and stick American taxpayers with the bill
Hey, Obama Youth: Your Candidate Wants 50 Hours of Community Service Per Year
The National Review
Monday, July 07, 2008
So when I'm President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you'll have done 17 weeks of service.
We'll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities. At the community level, we'll develop public-private partnerships so students can serve more outside the classroom.
My initial thought: Contrast this plan to Ron Artest, who got 50 hours of community service for punching fans at an NBA game. Randy Moss got 40 hours for pushing a traffic police officer. And God help your child if they end up in the same community service program as Naomi Campbell, sentenced to 200 hours of service for assaulting two police officers at Heathrow Airport.
Paul at PowerLine is unimpressed. "Many school districts already impose this sort of requirement. My daughters' district did. In practice, the regime seemed pretty foolish. Students who were motivated by altruism or ambition or a combination of the two did some good works, though less than one might imagine. The rest obtained their credit through activities whose value to the community was unclear. For example, the local high school gave community service credit for working in the school store. The school got free labor; the students got large amounts of the credit they needed (plus free candy); the community got nothing. really."
I'm wondering about the President using federal funding to coerce schools into requiring community service for middle and high school students. Community service is (often) a noble act, but Obama appears to be very close to echoing John Kerry's Orwellian call for mandatory volunteerism. Notice it's always those who are old who are calling for mandatory time and energy commitments of the young.
Then again, Michelle Obama warned us:
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed
This is no different than the Hitler Youth. Might I also say are common in Fascist, Socialist, Imperialist, and Communist country's...
I do not know what Obama will bring but his idea's are laced with socialist and communist ideals. I am also aware that he has close friendships and ties with extremist.

"Why did Senator Ted Kennedy Support Obama"

Simple there is not one peice of legislation with a Kennedy name all over it, this was Obama's gift to Senator Ted Kennedy, and the Kennedy Clan, selling one soul is ego first...


Hillary Clinton
8, 2008 Posted: 7:19 pmNovember 8, 2008
Hillary Rodham Clinton's dream of overhauling the country's health-care system as the steward of a new Senate subcommittee has reportedly flatlined.
The New York senator had made health-care reform the centerpiece of her presidential campaign. After bowing out of the race, Clinton pushed fellow Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, to create a special health subcommittee for her to head.
But the Massachusetts senator, who's battling brain cancer, has shot down that idea - all but dashing any hope Clinton had of pinning her legacy to universal coverage.
Michael Myers, Kennedy's staff director on the committee, ended any speculation by telling the trade publication Inside Health Policy that Clinton would not chair a subcommittee. Kennedy will instead hold health-care proceedings at the full committee level, Myers said.
"In the end, it's President Obama who's going to lead the effort for us," Myers told Inside Health Policy.
According to The Washington Post, Clinton had sought the subcommittee to grab the health-care policy reins away from Kennedy, a champion of reform.
Clinton senior adviser Philippe Reines told The Post the senator would assist however she could.
Clinton told Kennedy and Majority Leader Harry Reid "that she stands ready to help President-elect Obama in any and every way she can to enact comprehensive health-care reform, which she has sought for nearly two decades," Reines said.
Clinton discussed her future endeavors in a Time magazine interview this week, quashing speculation she wanted a Cabinet-level job in the Obama administration or a seat on the Supreme Court.
"I'm interested in standing on the South Lawn of the White House and seeing President Obama signing into law quality, affordable health care for everybody, and voting in a big majority for clean, renewable energy and smarter economic policies," Clinton told Time.



Democracy In Suffrage, is announcing meeting November 16, 2008, meeting time is 2:00pm sharp. Meeting place will be announced before the week is up. This meeting is going to be full of announcements and new directions. “Please RSVP”...
412 351-6764,

Saturday, November 8, 2008

“This Man Is On Obama's Short List For Sectary Of Treasury”

First I like to address Jewish issue. So many Jewish Americans supported Obama, why I don't know most the people this man surrounds himself with have a personal issue with Israel. Also he surrounds himself with sexist, or better said misogynist. Lawrence Summers is both of these things. One last thing I am sicken when I realise this man was Sectary of Treasure in President Clinton administration for the last year and half, sad but true...


Lawrence Henry “Larry” Summers (born November 30, 1954) is an American economist. He is currently the Charles W. Eliot University Professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. He is the 1993 recipient of the John Bates Clark Medal for his work in several fields of economics and was Secretary of the Treasury for the last year and a half of the Bill Clinton administration. He also served as the 27th President of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006.
In three instances during his time as Harvard president, Summers made remarks that touched on political "hot-button" controversies.
Environmentalists, affirmative action advocates, and many women and those concerned with women's issues took offense and brought increasing pressure on Harvard, contributing to his resignation. Summers also proposed reforming undergraduate education and requested that professors take greater responsibility in teaching their undergraduate classes, as opposed to delegating to teaching fellows. His resignation resulted in hundreds of millions in pledged contributions being canceled by donors; Summers was widely supported by Harvard college alumni, as well as students and faculty at Harvard University's professional schools (in particular Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School).
Summers left his position as President of Harvard on
June 30, 2006, and was replaced by former University President Derek Bok as acting Interim President the next day. Summers has accepted an invitation to return to the University following a planned sabbatical for the 2006–07 academic year as one of Harvard's select University Professors. Separately, as announced on October 19, 2006, he became a part-time managing director of the investment and technology development firm D. E. Shaw & Co. In November, 2008, he was named to Barack Obama's Transition Economic Advisory Board.[1]

Summers is an ardent proponent of
free trade and globalization, and frequently takes positions on a number of politically-charged subjects. This, along with his direct style of management, made him controversial as President of Harvard.

[edit] World Bank Pollution Memo
Main article:
Summers Memo
In December 1991, while at the World Bank, Summers signed a memo written by staff economist Lant Pritchett which argued among other things (according to its author; the full memo is not public) that free trade would not necessarily benefit the environment in developing countries. Pritchett also drafted what he referred to as an ironic aside to the memo which Summers also signed. The aside was leaked to the press and stated that, developed countries ought to export more pollution to developing countries because these countries would incur the lowest cost from the pollution in terms of lost wages of people made ill or killed by the pollution due to the fact that wages are so low in developing countries. The aside went on to state that "the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that"[14] Public outcry ensued when the aside was leaked.

Cornel West
In the fall of 2001 the US national media focused their attention on a private meeting in which Summers criticized prominent
African-American Studies professor Cornel West, for missing too many classes, contributing to grade inflation, and neglecting serious scholarship. West, who later called Summers both "uninformed" and "an unprincipled power player" in describing this encounter in his book Democracy Matters (2004), subsequently returned to Princeton University, where he taught prior to Harvard University.

Anti-Israel attitude among academics
In 2002, Summers stated that a campaign by Harvard and MIT faculty to have their universities
divest from companies with Israeli holdings was part of a larger trend among left-leaning academics.

Differences between the sexes
See also:
Gender differences
In January 2005, Summers suggested, at a Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce sponsored by the
National Bureau of Economic Research, the possibility that many factors outside of socialization could explain why there were more men than women in high-end science and engineering positions. He suggested one such possible reason could be men's higher variance in relevant innate abilities or innate preference.[15][16] An attendee made Summers' remarks public, and an intense response followed in the national news media and on Harvard's campus.[17]

Summers' opposition and support at Harvard
March 15, 2005, members of Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which instructs graduate students in GSAS and undergraduates in Harvard College, passed 218–185 a motion of "lack of confidence" in the leadership of Summers, with 18 abstentions. A second motion that offered a milder censure of the president passed 253 to 137, also with 18 abstentions.
The lack of confidence measure is different from a "
no-confidence" vote, which in the British parliamentary system causes the fall of a government, and it has no formal effect on the president's position. The members of the Harvard Corporation, the University's highest governing body, are in charge of the selection of the president and issued statements strongly supporting Summers.
FAS faculty were not unanimous in their comments on Summers. Influential psychologist
Steven Pinker defended the legitimacy of Summers' January remarks. When asked if Summers' remarks were "within the pale of legitimate academic discourse," Pinker responded "Good grief, shouldn’t everything be within the pale of legitimate academic discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of rigor? That’s the difference between a university and a madrassa. [...] There is certainly enough evidence for the hypothesis to be taken seriously."[18]
Summers had stronger support among Harvard College students than among the college faculty. One poll by the Harvard Crimson indicated that students opposed his resignation by a three-to-one margin, with 57% of responding students opposing his resignation and 19% supporting it.[19]
In July 2005, the only African-American board member of Harvard Corporation, Conrad K. Harper, resigned saying he was angered both by the university president's comments about women and by Summers being given a salary increase. (Some reports suggest Harper's support of Summers may have first started to erode earlier because of the Cornel West controversy.) The resignation letter to the president said, "I could not and cannot support a raise in your salary, ... I believe that Harvard's best interests require your resignation."[20][21]
During Summers' tenure, many Harvard alumni responded by writing letters and declining to donate in response to the various controversies. After the Harvard Corporation accepted Summers' resignation, some pledged contributions were canceled but other contributions were made in celebration of his resignation. Some donors were disappointed by the Harvard Corporation's failure to stand up to the college faculty but some donors were impressed by the decision. There was not a consensus amongst the alumni, students or faculty of Harvard University regarding Summers' tenure. His tenure was received with mixed reviews. Despite the negative controversies that his conduct and words often created, Summers led some initiatives at Harvard that have continued to benefit the University.

Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering WorkforceLawrence H. SummersCambridge, Mass.January 14, 2005

I asked Richard, when he invited me to come here and speak, whether he wanted an institutional talk about Harvard's policies toward diversity or whether he wanted some questions asked and some attempts at provocation, because I was willing to do the second and didn't feel like doing the first. And so we have agreed that I am speaking unofficially and not using this as an occasion to lay out the many things we're doing at Harvard to promote the crucial objective of diversity. There are many aspects of the problems you're discussing and it seems to me they're all very important from a national point of view. I'm going to confine myself to addressing one portion of the problem, or of the challenge we're discussing, which is the issue of women's representation in tenured positions in science and engineering at top universities and research institutions, not because that's necessarily the most important problem or the most interesting problem, but because it's the only one of these problems that I've made an effort to think in a very serious way about. The other prefatory comment that I would make is that I am going to, until most of the way through, attempt to adopt an entirely positive, rather than normative approach, and just try to think about and offer some hypotheses as to why we observe what we observe without seeing this through the kind of judgmental tendency that inevitably is connected with all our common goals of equality. It is after all not the case that the role of women in science is the only example of a group that is significantly underrepresented in an important activity and whose underrepresentation contributes to a shortage of role models for others who are considering being in that group. To take a set of diverse examples, the data will, I am confident, reveal that Catholics are substantially underrepresented in investment banking, which is an enormously high-paying profession in our society; that white men are very substantially underrepresented in the National Basketball Association; and that Jews are very substantially underrepresented in farming and in agriculture. These are all phenomena in which one observes underrepresentation, and I think it's important to try to think systematically and clinically about the reasons for underrepresentation.
There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference's papers document and have been documented before with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. One is what I would call the-I'll explain each of these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are-the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described.
Maybe it would be helpful to just, for a moment, broaden the problem, or the issue, beyond science and engineering. I've had the opportunity to discuss questions like this with chief executive officers at major corporations, the managing partners of large law firms, the directors of prominent teaching hospitals, and with the leaders of other prominent professional service organizations, as well as with colleagues in higher education. In all of those groups, the story is fundamentally the same. Twenty or twenty-five years ago, we started to see very substantial increases in the number of women who were in graduate school in this field. Now the people who went to graduate school when that started are forty, forty-five, fifty years old. If you look at the top cohort in our activity, it is not only nothing like fifty-fifty, it is nothing like what we thought it was when we started having a third of the women, a third of the law school class being female, twenty or twenty-five years ago. And the relatively few women who are in the highest ranking places are disproportionately either unmarried or without children, with the emphasis differing depending on just who you talk to. And that is a reality that is present and that one has exactly the same conversation in almost any high-powered profession. What does one make of that? I think it is hard-and again, I am speaking completely descriptively and non-normatively-to say that there are many professions and many activities, and the most prestigious activities in our society expect of people who are going to rise to leadership positions in their forties near total commitments to their work. They expect a large number of hours in the office, they expect a flexibility of schedules to respond to contingency, they expect a continuity of effort through the life cycle, and they expect-and this is harder to measure-but they expect that the mind is always working on the problems that are in the job, even when the job is not taking place. And it is a fact about our society that that is a level of commitment that a much higher fraction of married men have been historically prepared to make than of married women. That's not a judgment about how it should be, not a judgment about what they should expect. But it seems to me that it is very hard to look at the data and escape the conclusion that that expectation is meeting with the choices that people make and is contributing substantially to the outcomes that we observe. One can put it differently. Of a class, and the work that Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz are doing will, I'm sure, over time, contribute greatly to our understanding of these issues and for all I know may prove my conjectures completely wrong. Another way to put the point is to say, what fraction of young women in their mid-twenties make a decision that they don't want to have a job that they think about eighty hours a week. What fraction of young men make a decision that they're unwilling to have a job that they think about eighty hours a week, and to observe what the difference is. And that has got to be a large part of what is observed. Now that begs entirely the normative questions-which I'll get to a little later-of, is our society right to expect that level of effort from people who hold the most prominent jobs? Is our society right to have familial arrangements in which women are asked to make that choice and asked more to make that choice than men? Is our society right to ask of anybody to have a prominent job at this level of intensity, and I think those are all questions that I want to come back to. But it seems to me that it is impossible to look at this pattern and look at its pervasiveness and not conclude that something of the sort that I am describing has to be of significant importance. To buttress conviction and theory with anecdote, a young woman who worked very closely with me at the Treasury and who has subsequently gone on to work at Google highly successfully, is a 1994 graduate of Harvard Business School. She reports that of her first year section, there were twenty-two women, of whom three are working full time at this point. That may, the dean of the Business School reports to me, that that is not an implausible observation given their experience with their alumnae. So I think in terms of positive understanding, the first very important reality is just what I would call the, who wants to do high-powered intense work?
The second thing that I think one has to recognize is present is what I would call the combination of, and here, I'm focusing on something that would seek to answer the question of why is the pattern different in science and engineering, and why is the representation even lower and more problematic in science and engineering than it is in other fields. And here, you can get a fair distance, it seems to me, looking at a relatively simple hypothesis. It does appear that on many, many different human attributes-height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. And that is true with respect to attributes that are and are not plausibly, culturally determined. If one supposes, as I think is reasonable, that if one is talking about physicists at a top twenty-five research university, one is not talking about people who are two standard deviations above the mean. And perhaps it's not even talking about somebody who is three standard deviations above the mean. But it's talking about people who are three and a half, four standard deviations above the mean in the one in 5,000, one in 10,000 class. Even small differences in the standard deviation will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out. I did a very crude calculation, which I'm sure was wrong and certainly was unsubtle, twenty different ways. I looked at the Xie and Shauman paper-looked at the book, rather-looked at the evidence on the sex ratios in the top 5% of twelfth graders. If you look at those-they're all over the map, depends on which test, whether it's math, or science, and so forth-but 50% women, one woman for every two men, would be a high-end estimate from their estimates. From that, you can back out a difference in the implied standard deviations that works out to be about 20%. And from that, you can work out the difference out several standard deviations. If you do that calculation-and I have no reason to think that it couldn't be refined in a hundred ways-you get five to one, at the high end. Now, it's pointed out by one of the papers at this conference that these tests are not a very good measure and are not highly predictive with respect to people's ability to do that. And that's absolutely right. But I don't think that resolves the issue at all. Because if my reading of the data is right-it's something people can argue about-that there are some systematic differences in variability in different populations, then whatever the set of attributes are that are precisely defined to correlate with being an aeronautical engineer at MIT or being a chemist at Berkeley, those are probably different in their standard deviations as well. So my sense is that the unfortunate truth-I would far prefer to believe something else, because it would be easier to address what is surely a serious social problem if something else were true-is that the combination of the high-powered job hypothesis and the differing variances probably explains a fair amount of this problem.
There may also be elements, by the way, of differing, there is some, particularly in some attributes, that bear on engineering, there is reasonably strong evidence of taste differences between little girls and little boys that are not easy to attribute to socialization. I just returned from Israel, where we had the opportunity to visit a kibbutz, and to spend some time talking about the history of the kibbutz movement, and it is really very striking to hear how the movement started with an absolute commitment, of a kind one doesn't encounter in other places, that everybody was going to do the same jobs. Sometimes the women were going to fix the tractors, and the men were going to work in the nurseries, sometimes the men were going to fix the tractors and the women were going to work in the nurseries, and just under the pressure of what everyone wanted, in a hundred different kibbutzes, each one of which evolved, it all moved in the same direction. So, I think, while I would prefer to believe otherwise, I guess my experience with my two and a half year old twin daughters who were not given dolls and who were given trucks, and found themselves saying to each other, look, daddy truck is carrying the baby truck, tells me something. And I think it's just something that you probably have to recognize. There are two other hypotheses that are all over. One is socialization. Somehow little girls are all socialized towards nursing and little boys are socialized towards building bridges. No doubt there is some truth in that. I would be hesitant about assigning too much weight to that hypothesis for two reasons. First, most of what we've learned from empirical psychology in the last fifteen years has been that people naturally attribute things to socialization that are in fact not attributable to socialization. We've been astounded by the results of separated twins studies. The confident assertions that autism was a reflection of parental characteristics that were absolutely supported and that people knew from years of observational evidence have now been proven to be wrong. And so, the human mind has a tendency to grab to the socialization hypothesis when you can see it, and it often turns out not to be true. The second empirical problem is that girls are persisting longer and longer. When there were no girls majoring in chemistry, when there were no girls majoring in biology, it was much easier to blame parental socialization. Then, as we are increasingly finding today, the problem is what's happening when people are twenty, or when people are twenty-five, in terms of their patterns, with which they drop out. Again, to the extent it can be addressed, it's a terrific thing to address.
The most controversial in a way, question, and the most difficult question to judge, is what is the role of discrimination? To what extent is there overt discrimination? Surely there is some. Much more tellingly, to what extent are there pervasive patterns of passive discrimination and stereotyping in which people like to choose people like themselves, and the people in the previous group are disproportionately white male, and so they choose people who are like themselves, who are disproportionately white male. No one who's been in a university department or who has been involved in personnel processes can deny that this kind of taste does go on, and it is something that happens, and it is something that absolutely, vigorously needs to be combated. On the other hand, I think before regarding it as pervasive, and as the dominant explanation of the patterns we observe, there are two points that should make one hesitate. The first is the fallacy of composition. No doubt it is true that if any one institution makes a major effort to focus on reducing stereotyping, on achieving diversity, on hiring more people, no doubt it can succeed in hiring more. But each person it hires will come from a different institution, and so everyone observes that when an institution works very hard at this, to some extent they are able to produce better results. If I stand up at a football game and everybody else is sitting down, I can see much better, but if everybody stands up, the views may get a little better, but they don't get a lot better. And there's a real question as to how plausible it is to believe that there is anything like half as many people who are qualified to be scientists at top ten schools and who are now not at top ten schools, and that's the argument that one has to make in thinking about this as a national problem rather than an individual institutional problem. The second problem is the one that Gary Becker very powerfully pointed out in addressing racial discrimination many years ago. If it was really the case that everybody was discriminating, there would be very substantial opportunities for a limited number of people who were not prepared to discriminate to assemble remarkable departments of high quality people at relatively limited cost simply by the act of their not discriminating, because of what it would mean for the pool that was available. And there are certainly examples of institutions that have focused on increasing their diversity to their substantial benefit, but if there was really a pervasive pattern of discrimination that was leaving an extraordinary number of high-quality potential candidates behind, one suspects that in the highly competitive academic marketplace, there would be more examples of institutions that succeeded substantially by working to fill the gap. And I think one sees relatively little evidence of that. So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination. I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong, because I would like nothing better than for these problems to be addressable simply by everybody understanding what they are, and working very hard to address them.
What's to be done? And what further questions should one know the answers to? Let me take a second, first to just remark on a few questions that it seems to me are ripe for research, and for all I know, some of them have been researched. First, it would be very useful to know, with hard data, what the quality of marginal hires are when major diversity efforts are mounted. When major diversity efforts are mounted, and consciousness is raised, and special efforts are made, and you look five years later at the quality of the people who have been hired during that period, how many are there who have turned out to be much better than the institutional norm who wouldn't have been found without a greater search. And how many of them are plausible compromises that aren't unreasonable, and how many of them are what the right-wing critics of all of this suppose represent clear abandonments of quality standards. I don't know the answer, but I think if people want to move the world on this question, they have to be willing to ask the question in ways that could face any possible answer that came out. Second, and by the way, I think a more systematic effort to look at citation records of male and female scholars in disciplines where citations are relatively well-correlated with academic rank and with people's judgments of quality would be very valuable. Of course, most of the critiques of citations go to reasons why they should not be useful in judging an individual scholar. Most of them are not reasons why they would not be useful in comparing two large groups of scholars and so there is significant potential, it seems to me, for citation analysis in this regard. Second, what about objective versus subjective factors in hiring? I've been exposed, by those who want to see the university hiring practices changed to favor women more and to assure more diversity, to two very different views. One group has urged that we make the processes consistently more clear-cut and objective, based on papers, numbers of papers published, numbers of articles cited, objectivity, measurement of performance, no judgments of potential, no reference to other things, because if it's made more objective, the subjectivity that is associated with discrimination and which invariably works to the disadvantage of minority groups will not be present. I've also been exposed to exactly the opposite view, that those criteria and those objective criteria systematically bias the comparisons away from many attributes that those who contribute to the diversity have: a greater sense of collegiality, a greater sense of institutional responsibility. Somebody ought to be able to figure out the answer to the question of, if you did it more objectively versus less objectively, what would happen. Then you can debate whether you should or whether you shouldn't, if objective or subjective is better. But that question ought to be a question that has an answer, that people can find. Third, the third kind of question is, what do we know about search procedures in universities? Is it the case that more systematic comprehensive search processes lead to minority group members who otherwise would have not been noticed being noticed? Or does fetishizing the search procedure make it very difficult to pursue the targets of opportunity that are often available arising out of particular family situations or particular moments, and does fetishizing and formalizing search procedures further actually work to the disadvantage of minority group members. Again, everybody's got an opinion; I don't think anybody actually has a clue as to what the answer is. Fourth, what do we actually know about the incidence of financial incentives and other support for child care in terms of what happens to people's career patterns. I've been struck at Harvard that there's something unfortunate and ironic about the fact that if you're a faculty member and you have a kid who's 18 who goes to college, we in effect, through an interest-free loan, give you about $9,000. If you have a six-year-old, we give you nothing. And I don't think we're very different from most other universities in this regard, but there is something odd about that strategic choice, if the goal is to recruit people to come to the university. But I don't think we know much about the child care issue. The fifth question-which it seems to me would be useful to study and to actually learn the answer to-is what do we know, or what can we learn, about the costs of career interruptions. There is something we would like to believe. We would like to believe that you can take a year off, or two years off, or three years off, or be half-time for five years, and it affects your productivity during the time, but that it really doesn't have any fundamental effect on the career path. And a whole set of conclusions would follow from that in terms of flexible work arrangements and so forth. And the question is, in what areas of academic life and in what ways is it actually true. Somebody reported to me on a study that they found, I don't remember who had told me about this-maybe it was you, Richard-that there was a very clear correlation between the average length of time, from the time a paper was cited. That is, in fields where the average papers cited had been written nine months ago, women had a much harder time than in fields where the average thing cited had been written ten years ago. And that is suggestive in this regard. On the discouraging side of it, someone remarked once that no economist who had gone to work at the President's Council of Economic Advisors for two years had done highly important academic work after they returned. Now, I'm sure there are counterexamples to that, and I'm sure people are kind of processing that Tobin's Q is the best-known counterexample to that proposition, and there are obviously different kinds of effects that happen from working in Washington for two years. But it would be useful to explore a variety of kinds of natural interruption experiments, to see what actual difference it makes, and to see whether it's actually true, and to see in what ways interruptions can be managed, and in what fields it makes a difference. I think it's an area in which there's conviction but where it doesn't seem to me there's an enormous amount of evidence. What should we all do? I think the case is overwhelming for employers trying to be the [unintelligible] employer who responds to everybody else's discrimination by competing effectively to locate people who others are discriminating against, or to provide different compensation packages that will attract the people who would otherwise have enormous difficulty with child care. I think a lot of discussion of issues around child care, issues around extending tenure clocks, issues around providing family benefits, are enormously important. I think there's a strong case for monitoring and making sure that searches are done very carefully and that there are enough people looking and watching that that pattern of choosing people like yourself is not allowed to take insidious effect. But I think it's something that has to be done with very great care because it slides easily into pressure to achieve given fractions in given years, which runs the enormous risk of people who were hired because they were terrific being made to feel, or even if not made to feel, being seen by others as having been hired for some other reason. And I think that's something we all need to be enormously careful of as we approach these issues, and it's something we need to do, but I think it's something that we need to do with great care.
Let me just conclude by saying that I've given you my best guesses after a fair amount of reading the literature and a lot of talking to people. They may be all wrong. I will have served my purpose if I have provoked thought on this question and provoked the marshalling of evidence to contradict what I have said. But I think we all need to be thinking very hard about how to do better on these issues and that they are too important to sentimentalize rather than to think about in as rigorous and careful ways as we can. That's why I think conferences like this are very, very valuable. Thank you.
Questions and Answers
Q: Well, I don't want to take up much time because I know other people have questions, so, first of all I'd like to say thank you for your input. It's very interesting-I noticed it's being recorded so I hope that we'll be able to have a copy of it. That would be nice.
LHS: We'll see. (LAUGHTER)
Q: Secondly, you make a point, which I very much agree with, that this is a wonderful opportunity for other universities to hire women and minorities, and you said you didn't have an example of an instance in which that is being done. The chemistry department at Rutgers is doing that, and they are bragging about it and they are saying, "Any woman who is having problems in her home department, send me your resume." They are now at twenty-five percent women, which is double the national average-among the top fifty universities-so I agree with you on that. I think it is a wonderful opportunity and I hope others follow that example. One thing that I do sort of disagree with is the use of identical twins that have been separated and their environment followed. I think that the environments that a lot of women and minorities experience would not be something that would be-that a twin would be subjected to if the person knows that their environment is being watched. Because a lot of the things that are done to women and minorities are simply illegal, and so they'll never experience that.
LHS: I don't think that. I don't actually think that's the point at all. My point was a very different one. My point was simply that the field of behavioral genetics had a revolution in the last fifteen years, and the principal thrust of that revolution was the discovery that a large number of things that people thought were due to socialization weren't, and were in fact due to more intrinsic human nature, and that set of discoveries, it seemed to me, ought to influence the way one thought about other areas where there was a perception of the importance of socialization. I wasn't at all trying to connect those studies to the particular experiences of women and minorities who were thinking about academic careers.
Q: Raising that particular issue, as a biologist, I neither believe in all genetic or all environment, that in fact behavior in any other country actually develops [unintelligible] interaction of those aspects. And I agree with you, in fact, that it is wrong-headed to just dismiss the biology. But to put too much weight to it is also incredibly wrong-headed, given the fact that had people actually had different kinds of opportunities, and different opportunities for socialization, there is good evidence to indicate in fact that it would have had different outcomes. I cite by way of research the [unintelligible] project in North Carolina, which essentially shows that, where every indicator with regard to mother's education, socioeconomic status, et cetera, would have left a kid in a particular place educationally, that, essentially, they are seeing totally different outcomes with regard to performance, being referred to special education, et cetera, so I think that there is some evidence on that particular side. The other issue is this whole question about objective versus subjective. I think that it is very difficult to have anything that is basically objective, and the work of [unintelligible] I think point out that in a case where you are actually trying to-this case from the Swedish Medical Council, where they were trying to identify very high-powered research opportunities for, I guess it was post-docs by that point, that indicated that essentially that it ended up with larger numbers of men than women. Two of the women who were basically in the affected group were able to utilize the transparency rules that were in place in Sweden, get access to the data, get access to the issues, and in fact, discovered that it was not as objective as everyone claimed, and that in fact, different standards were actually being used for the women as well as for the men, including the men's presence in sort of a central network, the kinds of journals that they had to publish in to be considered at the same level, so I think that there are pieces of research that begin to actually relate to this-yes, there is the need to look more carefully at a lot of these areas. I would-in addition looking at this whole question of the quality of marginal hires-I would also like to look at the quality of class one hires, in terms of seeing who disappoints, and what it was that they happened to be looking at and making judgments on, and then what the people could not deliver. So I think that there is a real great need on both sides to begin to talk about whether or not we can predict. I hate to use a sports metaphor, but I will. This is drawn basically from an example from Claude Steele, where he says, he starts by using free throws as a way of actually determining, who should-you've got to field a basketball team, and you clearly want the people who make ten out of ten, and you say, "Well, I may not want the people who make zero out of ten," but what about the people who make four out of ten. If you use that as the measure, Shaq will be left on the sidelines.
LHS: I understand. I think you're obviously right that there's no absolute objectivity, and you're-there's no question about that. My own instincts actually are that you could go wrong in a number of respects fetishizing objectivity for exactly the reasons that you suggest. There is a very simple and straightforward methodology that was used many years ago in the case of baseball. Somebody wrote a very powerful article about baseball, probably in the seventies, in which they basically said, "Look, it is true that if you look at people's salaries, and you control for their batting averages and their fielding averages and whatnot, whites and blacks are in the same salary once you control. It is also true that there are no black .240 hitters in the major leagues, that the only blacks who are in the major leagues are people who bat over .300-I'm exaggerating-and that is exactly what you'd predict on a model of discrimination, that because there's a natural bias against. And there's an absolute and clear prediction. The prediction is that if there's a discriminated-against group, that if you measure subsequent performance, their subsequent performance will be stronger than that of the non-discriminated-against group. And that's a simple prediction of a theory of discrimination. And it's a testable prediction of a theory of discrimination, and it would be a revolution, and it would be an enormously powerful finding in this field, to demonstrate, and I suspect there are contexts in which that can be demonstrated, but there's a straightforward methodology, it seems to me, for testing exactly that idea. I'm going to run out of time. But, let me take-if people ask very short questions, I will give very short answers.
Q: What about the rest of the world. Are we keeping up? Physics, France, very high powered women in science in top positions. Same nature, same hormones, same ambitions we have to assume. Different cultural, given.
LHS: Good question. Good question. I don't know much about it. My guess is that you'll find that in most of those places, the pressure to be high powered, to work eighty hours a week, is not the same as it is in the United States. And therefore it is easier to balance on both sides. But I thought about that, and I think that you'll find that's probably at least part of the explanation.
Q: [unintelligible] because his book was referred to.
LHS: Right.
Q: I would like to make an on observation and then make a suggestion. The observation is that of the three. There is a contradiction in your three major observations that is the high-powered intensive need of scientific work-that's the first-and then the ability, and then the socialization, the social process. Would it be possible the first two result from the last one and that math ability could be a result of education, parenting, a lot of things. We only observe what happens, we don't know the reason for why there's a variance. I'll give you another thing, a suggestion. The suggestion is that one way to read your remarks is to say maybe those are not the things we can solve immediately. Especially as leaders of higher education because they are just so wide, so deep, and involves all aspects of society, institution, education, a lot of things, parenting, marriages are institutions, for example. We could have changed the institution of those things a lot of things we cannot change. Rather, it's not nature and nurture, it is really pre-college versus post-college. From your college point of view maybe those are things too late and too little you can do but a lot of things which are determined by sources outside the college you're in. Is that...
LHS: I think...
Q: That's a different read on your set of remarks.
LHS: I think your observation goes much more to my second point about the abilities and the variances than it does to the first point about what married woman....
Q: [unintelligible]
LHS: Yeah, look anything could be social, ultimately in all of that. I think that if you look at the literature on behavioral genetics and you look at the impact, the changed view as to what difference parenting makes, the evidence is really quite striking and amazing. I mean, just read Judith Rich Harris's book. It is just very striking that people's-and her book is probably wrong and its probably more than she says it is, and I know there are thirteen critiques and you can argue about it and I am not certainly a leading expert on that-but there is a lot there. And I think what it surely establishes is that human intuition tends to substantially overestimate the role-just like teachers overestimate their impact on their students relative to fellow students on other students-I think we all have a tendency with our intuitions to do it. So, you may be right, but my guess is that there are some very deep forces here that are going to be with us for a long time.
Q: You know, in the spirit of speaking truth to power, I'm not an expert in this area but a lot of people in the room are, and they've written a lot of papers in here that address ....
LHS: I've read a lot of them.
Q: And, you know, a lot of us would disagree with your hypotheses and your premises...
LHS: Fair enough.
Q: So it's not so clear.
LHS: It's not clear at all. I think I said it wasn't clear. I was giving you my best guess but I hope we could argue on the basis of as much evidence as we can marshal.
Q: It's here.
LHS: No, no, no. Let me say. I have actually read that and I'm not saying there aren't rooms to debate this in, but if somebody, but with the greatest respect-I think there's an enormous amount one can learn from the papers in this conference and from those two books-but if somebody thinks that there is proof in these two books, that these phenomenon are caused by something else, I guess I would very respectfully have to disagree very very strongly with that. I don't presume to have proved any view that I expressed here, but if you think there is proof for an alternative theory, I'd want you to be hesitant about that.
Q: Just one quick question in terms of the data. We saw this morning lots of data showing the drop in white males entering science and engineering, and I'm having trouble squaring that with your model of who wants to work eighty hours a week. It's mostly people coming from other countries that have filled that gap in terms of men versus women.
LHS: I think there are two different things, frankly, actually, is my guess-I'm not an expert. Somebody reported to me that-someone who is knowledgeable-said that it is surprisingly hard to get Americans rather than immigrants or the children of immigrants to be cardiac surgeons. Cardiac surgeon is about prestigious, certain kind of prestige as you can be, fact is that people want control of their lifestyles, people want flexibility, they don't want to do it, and it's disproportionately immigrants that want to do some of the careers that are most demanding in terms of time and most interfering with your lifestyle. So I think that's exactly right and I think it's precisely the package of number of hours' work what it is, that's leading more Americans to choose to have careers of one kind or another in business that are less demanding of passionate thought all the time and that includes white males as well.
Q: That's my point, that social-psychological in nature [unintelligible].
LHS: I would actually much rather stay-yes, and then I'm on my way out.
Q: I have no idea how you would evaluate the productivity of the marginal hire if this person is coming into an environment where [unintelligible] is marginal and there's [unintelligible].
LHS: You're absolutely right. You're absolutely right. I used the term-I realized I had not spoken carefully-I used the term marginal in the economic sense to mean, only additional, to only mean...
Q: [unintelligible].
LHS: No, to mean only the additional [unintelligible]. Yeah, obviously [unintelligible] going to identify X is the additional hire, is the marginal hire, the question you can ask is, you know, here is a time when, as a consequence of an effort, there was a very substantial increase in the number of people who were hired in a given group, what was the observed ex post quality? And what was the observed ex post performance? It's hard to believe that that's not a useful thing to try to know. It may well be that one will produce powerful evidence that the people are much better than the people who were there and that the institutions went up in quality and that made things much better. All I'm saying is one needs to ask the question. And as for the groping in the kitchen, and whatnot, look, it's absolutely important that in every university in America there be norms of civility and proper treatment of colleagues that be absolutely established and that that be true universally, and that's a hugely important part of this, and that's why at Harvard we're doing a whole set of things that are making junior faculty positions much more real faculty positions with real mentoring, real feedback, serious searches before the people are hired, and much greater prospects for tenure than there ever have been before because exactly that kind of collegiality is absolutely central to the academic enterprise.
Thank you.