Hi Barry, RE: "What do you say about media"
I absolutely agree with your point re: the photos.
Regarding media, I said,
"if one media omits information, that doesn't mean the other one doesn't. (Your question incorporated an incorrect assumption.)
and, "The omission of information by both is a problem."
and, "Today's media could do a better job of presenting all the material - so we aren't forced to run off to foreign ezines"
and, "I think both sides (information & perspective) should be shown in a war so people are more informed, why be ignorant to what the other person thinks - wouldn't that possibly hurt us? Also, it's important we understand war is violent, but I absolutely agree with you, the degree shown should be in moderation."
I agree with you - both sides should be careful.
Btw, my conversational thread originated with a question, "Hi Windsock & John, while traveling, I read in USA Today (Wed's edition) that Nasdaq & NYSE kicked out all the journalists from an Arab newspaper called "aljazeera" who reportedly were stationed for 5 years on the trading floor for news broadcast reporting. Does that violate some type of freedom of speech?"
The bottom-line from my the post you replied to (or the one up?), is, if the media (from all countries) allowed for freedom of speech (including ours), then we would be better apt at navigating around problems, better equipped to deploy more effective solutions, and better at preventive measures to avoid problems in the first place. I have relatives/friends in Wash DC and NY, so prefer if we are better equipped, more informed, and are as intelligent as we could possibly be when we handle international matters so we don't incite more.
RE: "The thing is, I live here in the USA and am a citizen of the USA and the values that operate for me are USA values - not Al Jezera's, Baghdad's, Saudi Arabia's, Iran's, Syria's, Egypt's, Jordan's, Lebanon's, Yeman's, France's, Russia's or Germany's."
You forgot North Korea in your long list of many countries.
RE: "If the other guy's standards happen to coincide with mine, then we can get along, but if and when the other guy's values differ from mine in a significant way, then we have a problem."
Your way only, or no way? I tend to believe in diversity.
RE: "We Americans have very high ideals of freedom"
Our so-called high ideals of freedom...
In 1990 I declined a job offer from EDS because their employee manual (that I asked to review during the interview process) demanded that women wear skirts and nylons for business meetings. This particular branch was located in one of the most freezingly cold places in the USA, so I let the interviewer know that I had to decline the position because of the employee manual's dress-code rule. He was trying to convince me to take the position anyway and was trying to minimize the rule. So, to help him understand the problem better, I asked him, "wouldn't you find it unusual if someone wore summer shorts in the middle of a freezing cold winter? Skirts are really no different than shorts - your legs don't have pants around them to keep them warm, so you can get very cold. Imagine standing out in a freezing cold snowy storm, waiting for a bus for an hour, in your shorts?" He understood, but still tried to get me to join their company. Sometimes values shouldn't imposed on others when they hurt. It takes a respect for diversity to understand that. It's ironic how some in the US criticizes women who wear chadors, when their outfits are infinitely warmer (according to a friend) than the American skirts, during the middle of winter.
Ironically, this was the same time the US claimed we are a "free" and "advanced" country for women. Sr Bush actually said on CSPAN that women should stay at home with their children. Wow. That was huge. I think I actually cried. It was so discouraging to hear something like that from a person at a top-most position in my country's government, especially at the start of my career! To this day, it surprises me his comment on CSPAN was not widely covered in the newspapers and press. Meanwhile, other countries have had a female President, but our "free" USA hasn't.
Interestingly enough, Jr Bush wants to repeal the family medical act law - meaning, women cannot even take time off from work without pay. (How can a female have a career if she needs to take time off for family medical reasons? How can a male Gen X guy, with a wife that has a successful career, navigate his career around Gen X-Buster Bush proposal?) I guess Gen X men should dump their working wives, and Gen X women should be at home with their children and never have a career. But wait, no, don't do that, because startups that don't operate to BushTune will lift them up. Bush does lip-service to wanting women in top corporate positions, but then tries to throw them out by dismantling laws protecting women in their early career years. And he tries to use the excuse, "it will save our businesses money if we don't allow women time off without pay for family or medical issues" but he is wrong. I run a business and know bloody well businesses SAVE money when a person takes time off without pay. Quite the contrary to Bush & Buddies' dishonest claim. In fact, our high-tech companies have been lobbying in Calif to allow men and women the freedom to take time off without pay when companies need to SAVE money. Bad Boy Bush.
One thing I always find interesting is how our society tends to put India down, by claiming the generalization India treats women poorly. Never mind the fact they had a female Prime Minister, while the USA has a glaring hole. The US papers act as if Indian women in India are dominated. One Indian lady recently made an interesting comment, "come to the US? I hear American women have lifestyles that are like slaves - most families can't even afford to hire help." Her comment was a bit extreme and by no means the norm, but the other point I made about how our country portrays Indian women in our newspapers as "coming from a disadvantaged country" or "where women are dominated" can be insulting for some Indian women, when in fact they can quite easily run a business in India if they are wealthy. Some say, respect in India (at the moment) seems to be more related to your wealth than your gender. In fact, some two-tier countries are said to be like that - wealthy women are similar to wealthy men in terms of their power. Women Indian business & gov't leaders are not timid poeple. But I don't think our society sees that because our newspapers seem to have stories only about poor foreign women, not powerful foreign women who lead countries or businesses in India (they only report about successful Indian women in USA, as if they have become "free" to advance in the USA.) This recent international shift in high-tech is a great boom for women's careers - women I know find it very easy to manage international divisions. My male friends give me advice on interpreting "power plays" (that usually go way over my head) while I give them advice on managing international divisions.
In the USA, I think our top execs are very fair and forwarding thinking about women. But it was concerning to receive bios/resumes where 10% to 20% of the execs said "Dear Sir" because they operated under the assumption that I had to be a male founder or a male board member. Talk about ignoring 50% of the population. Some were even brandname people WS guys know - and interestingly enough - were from those companies rumored (in women's grapevine) to be bad for women. (I won't disclose their names to anyone. It's not ethical. Also, 99% of people are educateable. I believe it's our job to educate.) But my biz partner and I put those resumes into the bit bucket. Maybe Univ of CA-Berkeley could do a little diverisity training - it's not like our industry can hold a "diversity class" at the next nw comm show. I was sort of embarrassed to see we had this issue in our industry, which is a reasonably new industry.
But overall, I will say high-tech is way better than many other industries when it comes to open-mindedness in diversity. But here's another story: my friend is one of the top-most female s/c executives in the industry (I never discuss business with her) and when she and her husband met with a group of other s/c CEOs/VPs a handful of them immediately assumed her husband was the s/c exec (not her) even though her photo is in EETimes on a regular basis (and her husband doesn't even work in s/c). (She doesn't work for Intel. Btw, Barrett is rumored to be a good CEO for women to work for at the top. Not sure if that applies to middle levels? It's interesting how court systems make companies responsible for the "values" and behavior of large populations - where are the court systems when a handful of high school guys get away with saying sexist things about women when they shouldn't?
I remember walking into a CS course for upper-level & grad students and a guy (that didn't have to work at 3 concurrent jobs while going through school) said "here comes Vienna White" really loud in class because I had to wear a skirt to work (where I advised small business owners) as it was very hot in the summer rushing to/from school/work - I couldn't afford the luxury of a car nor an AC car that he apparently had. But the comment hurt to the bone. I remember turning it into a positive and decided if I ever have the kind of wealth he had access to, I wouldn't make fun of those that didn't, nor make it worse for them.) He was struggling in his course, but the other guys that weren't struggling were friendly to me and became my buddies - some of them read this thread too (hi!). Why can't a company turn-around and sue an employee's school, Mom & Dad, or employee's friends for poor influencing?)
RE: "Sometimes we have to defend them."
Like Rwonda?
Or, only when it suits our needs?
Does Operation Iraq Liberation = OIL?
On another note, once a commitment is made and a promise is given, I think the US needs to stick to it, so Sadam doesn't turn around and kill another 1000 people that trusted the USA.
Regards,
Amy J |
