What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Judge Sotomayor is catching flack for having accepted, about one year ago, an invitation to join Belizean Grove, a small, (from one hundred and fifteen to one hundred and twenty five members), apparently intimate and rather exclusive, invitation-only organization which has only female members. According to its website, Belizean Grove isa constellation of influential women who are key decision makers in the profit, non-profit and social sectors; who build long term mutually beneficial relationships in order to both take charge of their own destinies and help others to do the same.To this end, the organization invitesmembers [who] are highly accomplished leaders in a wide venue of fields, are dedicated to giving back to their communities, have a sense of humor and excitement about life and are willing to mentor and share connections. With this vision in mind, members are invited not only for their professional accomplishments but also for their generosity and compatibility.According to the founder of the organization,Ms. Stautberg, who founded the private club nine years ago, . . . the group is a response to the all-male clubs that have long fostered business connections and policy links for powerful men.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - irene wagner
I thought 19 was a correction of my analysis of his analysis, Clavos.
27 - irene wagner
...and I'm not going to defend my analysis of his analysis, because it is likely to be wrong, I just didn't want to be misunderstanding THREE people on this thread.
28 - irene wagner
(I am laughing, I hope you know...)
29 - Cindy
7 - Jeannie,
S&B is the Frat (+ women since the 90s) Club for the masters of the universe. Some are the good 'ol boys and girls of the power elite, some are their minions.
But this is what Republics and Capitalism brings. No, it's not right. I suggest we get rid of gov't and thus their influence.
30 - roger nowosielski
Irene,
I think the distinction goes deeper, to include even those who try to emulate "their betters," or the original (if you like).
See, e.g., "Two Polish Films" (the third article from top, September archive), where I compare The Red and Black with a "similar" work by a Polish writer, Boleslaw Prus, The Doll (Lalka) - also a movie.
The Poles had a genuine aristocracy but the French always served as the model. And the differences are telling.
31 - Clavos
But this is what Republics and Capitalism brings.
Um, no.
This is what human nature brings.
People have a natural tendency to hang out with their own; hence clichés like "birds of a feather flock together."
32 - Cindy
Clav, That wasn't really my point. Even anarchists have voluntary association as a principle.
My point was about their power over other people, not their associating.
33 - Jeannie Danna
Irene, are you misinterpreting my comments? I think we are all agreeing here aren't we?
It seems like it...
OK, everyone that believes Judge Sotomayor should stay in her club and that the S&B's have way to much power. Raise your hands!
You too Cindy :)sorry bout my conniption the other day and I really didn't mean what I said to you:(
34 - Clavos
My point was about their power over other people, not their associating.
That, too, is human nature, though I know you anarchists don't think so.
Thatis, in fact, what (IMO) is wrong with anarchism as a political system.
35 - Jeannie Danna
People have a natural tendency to hang out with their own; hence clichés like "birds of a feather flock together."
Yes, but they don't have the right to override our elected officials!
36 - irene wagner
Jeannie asks me, "Irene, are you misinterpreting my comments?" and I will hazard an answer. "I wouldn't be at all surprised if I am." Take care, Jeannie.
37 - Jeannie Danna
Irene, What does take care mean?
38 - irene wagner
...well, Jeannie, it could mean many things, and if you'd said it to me, I would have probably locked onto the meaning you DIDN'T mean....
but I meant "take care" to mean: "Jeannie, have a good day, take good care of yourself, see 'ya, I have to go grocery shopping."
39 - Dan(Miller)
Clav, re # 31 -- then it is clear that we should get rid of humans. Not only do some of them think they are "masters of the universe," all of them mess up the environment, horribly. As I have previously written,
We emphatically proclaim that humankind is the sole source of both global warming and global smarming, and that humankind must, therefore, out of reverence for Mother Earth, be eliminated.
Hark unto the words of Mani, may his holy name be praised.
Bishop Dan
40 - roger nowosielski
Jeannie and Irene. Let's all take a breather, shall we? - myself included.
41 - irene wagner
Not before I emphasize to Jeannie that I am laughing at myself, not at her, Roger. I am apparently having major reading comprehension issues today...
42 - Jeannie Danna
Oh OK Irene! whew I thought here is another person I totally pissed off and I couldn't remember what I said.:)
43 - roger nowosielski
Well all do - the nature of the medium. Do you really think we'd be so much at each other's throat in person?
Why don't you look up the link I provided a few comments ago? It'll surely cure you of any "comprehension issues."
44 - Jeannie Danna
Dan, I don't get it. Are you for or against the reality of Global Warming?
Are you going to provide the kool-aide here?
Make mine a beer please, Guinness preferred:)
45 - Cindy
Clav,
That, too, is human nature, though I know you anarchists don't think so.
That is, in fact, what (IMO) is wrong with anarchism as a political system.
First I didn't say it wasn't human nature. I have simply said human nature is flexible. We can see this in egalitarian cultures, for example.
When we accept and live under a paradigm of domination, what can you expect to see? That you see it, is no evidence for it's rigid nature. If that were true it would be true for all humans and for all of history. We know it's not.
That domination is abundant whilst egalitarian cultures are not is no evidence that domination is the ONLY human nature. Wwould you expect? If people make it their goal to take over everything, what do you think will happen if the world allows this paradigm?
It is the very tendency for people to abuse power that requires anarchy.
Otherwise, consider this: isn't what you are saying, since it's human nature to desire power over others we should just allow that?
Why then not say that women shouldn't vote because mens' nature is to dominate them? Some cultures should rule over others because that's natural. Slavery would be natural under such ideas about human nature. That whatever human nature has arrived at in its current potential should be allowable.
What this does--this acceptance of the current nature of things--it prevents progress toward the elevation of our nature.
46 - Cindy
then it is clear that we should get rid of humans
We are Dan(Miller).
47 - Dan(Miller)
Jeannie,
My altar (horrible pun intended) ego, Bishop Dan, believes with all his being in the travesties of both Man Made Global Warming and Man Made Global Smarming; he has concluded that the only viable solution is the elimination of venal mankind, to which noble goal he has dedicated his life and sacred honor.
I, on the other hand, remain agnostic on that as well as on many other half baked notions. Perhaps more to the point, I think that the various remedies thus far suggested are at best silly, and that if there is actually such a thing as Man Made Global Warming, serious efforts to promote voluntary birth control make far more sense than anything thus far proposed.
Dan(Miller)
48 - Cindy
American "aristocracy" likes to think it is aristocracy, but it's really just nouveau riche.
Rich people have such funny pastimes, which often seem to involve trying to see themselves as better than someone else.
They have something in common with the 'intellectuals' who aspire to consider themselves as worthy of similar esteem (despite not having the bucks).
They're all just tiny little people under bellowing self-promotion.
49 - Jeannie Danna
Dan,
Growing up in catholic school, I remember more than one nun telling us. "Man will destroy man." I didn't know what they meant then but I believe that saying NOW!
50 - Jeannie Danna
Cindy, I'm a regular person trying to have conversations with intellectuals..:)
I have to admit that most of the time I don't have a clue! what the heck you guys are talking about. I'm just along for the ride..
51 - roger nowosielski
Then you'll have to count me out, Jeannie, for I never claimed that title for myself. I had no idea that any of my remarks were over your head so as to leave you clueless.
52 - Dave Nalle
Just to clarify the difference between nouveau riche and aristocracy in American terms, if you live off inherited money and have never had to work for a living other than in managing the family fortune, then you are part of America's aristocracy of wealth. If you worked and made yourself rich or are no more than one generation removed from someone who earned money by working for it, then you are nouveau riche.
And if you're on "The Real Housewives of XXX" then you're just tacky.
Dave
53 - Zedd
A few questions?
Is the discussion about whether or not the American dream is truly attainable?
Would a potential competitor ever be invited into one of these clubs?
By participating is such a group does a judge illuminate the limitations of our open society?
Are her civil liberities being trampled upon by denying her the right to participate in such a group?
54 - Cindy
45 should not be "Wwould you expect?" But 'What would you expect?"
55 - Cindy
33- Jeannie,
I often use 'conniption' as my middle name. ;-)
56 - roger nowosielski
"By participating is such a group does a judge illuminate the limitations of our open society?
Are her civil liberities being trampled upon by denying her the right to participate in such a group?"
Good questions, Zedd. Perhaps one way to escape the horns of the dilemma is to abrogate certain "civil rights" in case of elected/appointed officials.
57 - roger nowosielski
Dave, #52:
But "the aristocracy of wealth" is already a step below the blue-bloods.
58 - Cindy
50 - Jeannie,
Cindy, I'm a regular person trying to have conversations with intellectuals..:)
I am just a regular person too. I used to think of myself as reasonably 'intellectual', in this way I looked down on some people and up at other people. All the up and down made me so nauseous, I decided to give up that view. :-)
59 - Dan(Miller)
Zedd, re Comment #53:
Is the discussion about whether or not the American dream is truly attainable?
I suspect that there are many American DreamS, and that some may not realistically be attainable. Many others are attainable, as witness Judge Sotomayor's personal and professional achievements.
Would a potential competitor ever be invited into one of these clubs?
I would certainly hope so; according to its web site, the club here at issue is
a constellation of influential women who are key decision makers in the profit, non-profit and social sectors; who build long term mutually beneficial relationships in order to both take charge of their own destinies and help others to do the same.
By participating is such a group does a judge illuminate the limitations of our open society?
No, I don't she does. However, I think that her resignation from the group to avoid providing answers about that and other related topics does. I think it also illuminates some of the problems which result from our national preoccupation with political correctness.
Are her civil liberities being trampled upon by denying her the right to participate in such a group?
Judge Satomayor has not been deprived of any right to participate in the Belizean Grove; she withdrew voluntarily. Membership, in my opinion, did not contravene Canon 2C of the Code of Judicial Ethics, and she could easily have remained a member. As noted previously, I think that's what she should have done.
Dan(Miller)
60 - roger nowosielski
#59:
Zedd: "By participating is such a group does a judge illuminate the limitations of our open society?"
Dan (Miller): "No, I don't [think] she does."
The answer is skirting the issue, serving as a preamble to a dissertation on the evils of political correctness (which is a side point given the question before us).
If the purpose of groups such as the Belizean Grove (or the S & B, for that matter) is to maintain power and privilege, than they DO illuminate the limitations of our open society - which is not a comment on the person's rights to join such an exclusive club/group.
Whether elected/appointed officials should be entitled to the exact same civil rights accorded to ordinary citizens is the crux of Zedd's question, I take it. And perhaps, such perhaps, different standards ought to apply in these two kinds of cases - "the holding of office" being primary consideration.
61 - Clavos
she could easily have remained a member. As noted previously, I think that's what she should have done.
As do I.
62 - roger nowosielski
Errata: "And perhaps, just perhaps . . ."
63 - Clavos
Jeannie,
[I've been away working for a while -- now I'm catching up]
#33:OK, everyone that believes Judge Sotomayor should stay in her club and that the S&B's have way to much power. Raise your hands!
Aye on the first part, nay on the second.
#35: Yes, but they don't have the right to override our elected officials!
64 - Dan(Miller)
Roger,
There are already quite a few limitations on the rights of elected and appointed officials and others bound, for example, by various codes of ethics. Judges, for example, are required to be rather more circumspect during their extra-judicial moments than most "ordinary citizens."
Some organizations doubtless do seek to maintain power and privilege, but based on what little I have read about the Belizean Grove it does not; certainly to no greater degree than my brief comment on political correctness amounted to a "dissertation." I do think that political correctness is part of the problem, and that it may have had something to do with Judge Sotomayor's resignation; that's why I mentioned it.
Dan(Miller)
65 - Clavos
Cindy #45:
Your entire response presupposes that everyone believes in the ideal of egalitarianism and egalitarian societies. I don't think that's the case.
I, for one, would not at all like to live in a society where everyone is equal; despite what the declaration of independence says, my life experience tells me that not all people ARE equal: in industriousness, in ability (for whatever -- I couldn't catch a fish to save my life; many people make a good living doing so), intelligence, even luck ("right place right time").
In my somewhat long life, I have met few people I considered my equals; some (the majority) have been greater, a few lesser; but the point is, there's always a difference.
The way I see it, the dream of an egalitarian society depends very much on the co-operation of those in it. I for one, would not be co-operative, and I dare say there are billions like me in the world -- far more than there are those who would accept a truly egalitarian society.
YMMV.
66 - Cindy
Clav,
I will try to refrain from demanding the same size TV set for everyone. :-)
The chief element in an egalitarian society is not that everyone IS exactly the same. But that each has the same say in her/his own destiny.
67 - Clavos
Cindy,
Further to my comment above:
Even here in the microcosm of BC and these threads, we see differences. An excellent case in point is Roger's comment #40, which is not the first time he has attempted to exert influence (and in some instances, control) over others on the threads.
i don't mean this observation as an insult to Roger, but it is obvious that such an instinct comes to him repeatedly, these threads hold ample evidence of it.
[Sorry, Rog -- it's just too good an illustration of my point.]
68 - roger nowosielski
As to paragraph one, Dan, it's only as it should be.
And since I don't know much about the purposes of organizations such as Belizean Grove, let's just say she may be tended her resignation because of "political correctness" AND a sense of propriety - just in case . . .
And given that eventuality, I find no fault in her tending her resignation.
69 - Cindy
Example: In true matriarchies. Women do not dominate, but men and women all have a say. These are egalitarian societies. In true patriarchies, women have no voice and amount to property.
70 - roger nowosielski
Of course I'm exerting my influence here. Me and Jeannie have a pact.
71 - Cindy
67 - Clav,
I acknowledge your point and even said that is the reason why anarchy is a necessity. If all people everywhere simply naturally were fair, we wouldn't really need a system designed to correct unfairness.
By extending your argument against anarchy, I would be left with the proposition that we shouldn't have rules to try to create fairness in this forum, because people naturally aren't fair. So, creating a forum to counter this is quite unnatural. People should just be left to go about acting out their unfair nature.
72 - Clavos
I rather hope she did NOT tender her resignation in the interests of PC,but (and I think this more likely) did so for expediency, to facilitate the confirmation of her appointment.
If she had done so to be PC, it's logical to assume she never would have accepted membership in an eite club to begin with.
BTW, everybody: My bad on the open tag -- SORRY!
73 - Clavos
So, creating a forum to counter this is quite unnatural. People should just be left to go about acting out their unfair nature.
And this one, to a significant degree, places few restrictions on participants (as does, on a much larger scale, our society), which makes it an enjoyable (and ironically, more egalitarian) forum.
74 - Clavos
And now, like Irene, I have to go grocery shopping.
Like MacArthur, "I shall return."
75 - Cindy
Hah!
(he exits, like Irene, to the theme song from The Magnificent Seven)