Saturday, October 24, 2009
The more things change.....

I just saw this Joanne Lipman column in the New York Times, about the lack of progress in women's happiness since the 1980s. Here is a sample:
Even the positive numbers we’ve heard about during the recession are misleading — the ones that seem to indicate that women have suffered fewer job losses than men. The reason? Women are still concentrated in lower-paying fields, rather than the high-paying industries like finance and real estate that were hardest hit....
...I don’t think it’s a coincidence that exactly at this moment [9-11], women began losing ground — and not just in measurable ways, like how many women make partner or get jobs as chief executives. I’m referring to how we are perceived. The conversation online about women, as about so many other topics, degenerated from silly and snarky to just plain ugly — and it seeped into the mainstream. Recently, before a TV appearance, I did an Internet search on one of the interviewers so I could learn more about her — and got a full page of results about her breasts...
I would have like some more specifics and concrete suggestions about how to change all this, like exactly why 9-11 changed things. If you ask me, Lipman is one of the privileged 1% and not very representative of the women I know. Her point about perception being the problem is right on, though.
The Wall Street Journal recently ran a column about how couples who both do more housework have sex more often. The writer (a woman) took it as a given that the wives were doing almost twice as much housework as the husbands and that women worked only 19 hours a week outside the home. Not sure where she got her sample. The comments on the WSJ website were pretty revealing as well, with lots of references to men "helping" with the housework, as if it were the wife's natural duty and he was putting himself out purely to please her. Sort of like some of my friends who used to say their husbands were "babysitting" while they went to book club meetings. Excuse me? (I used to say.) Do you babysit when he works late or stops off for a beer? Is he not the kids' other parent?
I am very uncomfortable with the kind of feminism that argues that women are in some way "better" than men, because it is the kind of thinking that feeds into the notion that we should each stay in our own sphere. Anybody who has followed the careers of Hillary Clinton or Tzipi Livni -- not to mention Margaret Thatcher and Madeleine Albright -- should be disabused of the illusion that a woman-led world would be more peaceful than the present state of affairs. How about this: We let each individual person spend his or her time doing what they love and excel at? Then we might see a better world and lot less wasted effort.
Oh, and our sex lives would probably be pretty awesome as well.
Labels: feminism, hillary clinton, housework, tzipi livni
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Lady de Rothschild strikes again.

A few months ago I wrote about three of Hillary Clinton's financial backers. They seemed to feel entitled to control the decisions of U.S. voters, and I called for them to be ignored. At the time I also claimed that the three of them "meant well."
Pictured: Lynn Forester and husband Evelyn de Rothschild.
At the time of their marriage, Forbes Magazine noted: "Forester now heads the Luxembourg-based wireless broadband venture FirstMark Communications Europe. The startup launched in 1998 with great fanfare, raising $1 billion in funding and landing former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Washington consigliere Vernon Jordan as board members. But with losses piling up and a public offering pulled, investors are now disgruntled. Not to worry--there's no better backup plan than the Rothschild name."
Now we know better. You see, one of these three committed Democratic activists has just endorsed John McCain. Turns out she's not so comfortable with a Democrat in the White House if that Democrat is not also a personal friend who owes her numerous favors.
The donor in question is a certain Lynn Forester, also known as Lady de Rothschild. I cited this description of her from the Conde Nast Portfolio:
"When 67-year-old British banking scion Sir Evelyn Rothschild first set eyes on 44-year-old Lynn Forester at the 1998 Bilderburg conference—the matchmaker was none other than Henry Kissinger—she was already a woman of major means.
A corporate lawyer and telecommunications entrepreneur, the sparkly blond ex-wife of former New York politician Andrew Stein had made more than $100 million from the sale of cleverly acquired wireless broadband licenses. She was also sexy, charming, and dazzlingly well connected. Two years later, after the smitten Sir Evelyn divorced his second wife, Victoria Schott, the mother of his three children, Forester became the third Lady Rothschild. After marrying in November 2000 at a London synagogue, they honeymooned at the White House, guests of Lynn's good friends Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Today the New Jersey-born Lady de Rothschild—the flashiest hostess in London—is mates with Tony and Cherie Blair, among other topflight Britons. She's also mistress of the former John Singer Sargent home in Chelsea and of Ascott House, the 3,200-acre Rothschild family estate in Buckinghamshire, and the chief executive of E.L. Rothschild, the holding company that she owns with her third husband to manage investments in the Economist and various enterprises in India. Those include Fieldfresh, a startup that will grow and export Indian fruits and vegetables for markets in Europe and Asia, and a soon-to-be-announced retail venture aimed at the exploding Indian middle class."
The Conde Nast article gets much worse -- and much more revealing. Lady Forester de Rothschild also offered these tidbits:
"First of all, Hillary will be good for America. And so if we care about our country —which all of my fellow capitalists do —we'll be very pleased that she's president. And second of all, if we look at what is best for the economy, remember, she is a Clinton, and our economy under Clinton was strong, dynamic, productive, exciting. And the same kinds of people who advised Bill Clinton will be around Hillary Clinton. And she understands the importance of the business community, and it's not going to be about raising taxes or doing any one specific thing. It's going to be, What is in the best interest of all Americans? And I think if history is our guide, we've had stronger economies, more wealth creation, under Democratic presidents than we have under Republican presidents. So I don't understand why all my capitalist friends aren't Democrats...
They're all going to take whatever questions we have. She's going to listen; they're going to listen. She can't be there the whole day, but it's so quintessentially Hillary. Politics is so boring, where they ask for your money, you get a glass of cheap wine and a biscuit, and then when you say, "You know, I have an idea about health care or I have an idea about inheritance tax," nobody wants to listen to you, because what they really want is your money. Hillary is the opposite. Obviously there aren't enough hours in the day to listen to every idea, but she is listening, and she is responding."
Translation: She will let me and my rich friends steer her economic policies.
To be fair, I don't think Hillary Clinton was ever going to be as easy to control as Lady de Rothschild expected. The quote reveals very little about Clinton's plans, and a whole lot about the assumptions of her so-called friends.
By the way, how did Lynn Forester de Rothschild make her first few million? She acquired assets for free from the U.S. federal government, and then sold them at an enormous profit.
"I realized that frequencies were a limited resource and that there would be a big business at some time around that, and so I was the first person to apply in the United States for wireless-broadband licenses. And yeah, I sold them for a lot of money."
Forester de Rothschild sold her interest in that company a couple months before the economic crash of 2000, and left her investors holding the bag. Anybody who takes investment or political advice from this character seriously needs psychiatric care.
Watch closely next time you see John McCain or Sarah Palin out in public. Are they scratching? It just seems like they've been lying down with so many dogs lately, they've just got to have fleas by now.
Labels: democrats, hillary clinton, John McCain, lynn forester de rothschild, republicans
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Saving the world, for real.
Now I read that Susie Tompkins Buell, Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild and Jill Iscol are refusing to raise money for Obama's campaign unless he offers her the vice presidential slot. They have every right to use their money for whatever purpose they want, but I do wish the chattering classes would stop asking them for their opinions. Putting aside the question of where Clinton could be most effective for the longest time, I have to ask, is this democracy? Need I remind Democrats that the GOP's listening to the clubbish preferences of big financial backers eight years ago gave us President George W. Bush?
Each of these three moneyed socialites has some worthwhile causes to her credit. Iscol's money presumably comes from her marriage to the owner of Cellular One, but she had a long career in education and has been actively working for years to improve the prospects and opportunities of America's public schoolchildren. That effort has more recently extended worldwide.
Her son Zachary Iscol, an officer in the U.S. Marines, has been an advocate far at least one Iraqi family left in danger because of service to U.S. forces. The New York Sun noted:
"Of the 2 million Iraqis who have taken refuge from the war in neighboring countries, about 900 have received visas in the last year to come to America.
Khalid Abood received his largely through the efforts of a Marine Corps captain, Zachary Iscol, whom Mr. Abood served under in 2004. Mr. Abood's departure to Jordan prompted Captain Iscol to travel to Capitol Hill and tell legislators of the plight of his former interpreter......In addition to investigative work, [Abood's] new job will involve interpreting for Arabic-speaking crime victims and suspects. Mr. Abood first came to [Manhattan District Attorney Robert] Morgenthau's attention through Captain Iscol's father, a family friend...."
As for Lynn Forester, she is also known as Lady de Rothschild. This is from the Conde Nast Portfolio:
"When 67-year-old British banking scion Sir Evelyn Rothschild first set eyes on 44-year-old Lynn Forester at the 1998 Bilderburg conference—the matchmaker was none other than Henry Kissinger—she was already a woman of major means.
A corporate lawyer and telecommunications entrepreneur, the sparkly blond ex-wife of former New York politician Andrew Stein had made more than $100 million from the sale of cleverly acquired wireless broadband licenses. She was also sexy, charming, and dazzlingly well connected. Two years later, after the smitten Sir Evelyn divorced his second wife, Victoria Schott, the mother of his three children, Forester became the third Lady Rothschild. After marrying in November 2000 at a London synagogue, they honeymooned at the White House, guests of Lynn's good friends Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Today the New Jersey-born Lady de Rothschild—the flashiest hostess in London—is mates with Tony and Cherie Blair, among other topflight Britons. She's also mistress of the former John Singer Sargent home in Chelsea and of Ascott House, the 3,200-acre Rothschild family estate in Buckinghamshire, and the chief executive of E.L. Rothschild, the holding company that she owns with her third husband to manage investments in the Economist and various enterprises in India. Those include Fieldfresh, a startup that will grow and export Indian fruits and vegetables for markets in Europe and Asia, and a soon-to-be-announced retail venture aimed at the exploding Indian middle class."
The Point Reyes Light, a community newspaper on the California coast, included this in a 2006 profile of Buell:
"Susie Tomkins Buell perched on a chartreuse bouclé armchair in her Bolinas living room Monday afternoon, her legs comfortably tucked beneath her. She reflected on the role that has increasingly occupied her attention since leaving Esprit de Corps and setting up the Susie Tompkins Buell Foundation in 1996 — that of a philanthropist. Nowadays, she and her husband, Mark Buell, spend their time deciding to whom and when to give money to best advance their political agenda: saving the world.
The Buells want Democrats in office. They want global warming addressed and thwarted. Most of all, they want women in power...."
All three of these women mean well. Politics, though, is apparently not their strength. Iscol, of "How Dare You" fame, seems to have a psychological need to be heard -- and heard, and heard. Forester de Rothschild may be uncomfortable with a first lady like Michelle Obama, a woman with working class roots who has been known to make more money than her husband makes. Buell may feel that the world is better saved by another Republican in office than by a man who treats his wife and daughters with respect. All three just might feel that they have been insufficiently kowtowed to so far by the Obama campaign. When you are used to buying for your friends the outcomes you want with your social and financial connections, it might be hard to realize that you are no longer calling the shots.
It may not have dawned on Susie Tompkins Buell, Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild and Jill Schaefer Iscol that America might not wish to have its leadership dictated by a trio of well-groomed elitists, or that what we like about Obama is that he feels like one of us, not one of them.
Labels: hillary clinton, jill iscol, lynn forester, michelle obama, susie buell
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Pardon my math, but Obama looks like a winner.
Based on the rough totals that I've been tracking in this primary, Barack Obama has gotten 17,505,420 votes so far if you count
John McCain's numbers have been lower, partly because the GOP primaries were a done deal much sooner. I suspect that this is also because the Republican Party is demoralized by the Bush presidency. Anyway, my count for McCain is 8,105,439. Let's multiply that by 1.5 just to be realistic, and give him 12,158,158.
Then we'll take Hillary Clinton's supporters at their word and assume that half of them dislike Obama so intensely that they will vote for a Republican. I think they call that cutting off your nose to spite your face, except in this case they're asking lots of other Democrats and progressive-minded Independents to sacrifice their noses as well. Half of
Obama would win by 5,109,500 votes, or 11 percentage points.
My point is, even using the relatively pessimistic evidence of primary and caucus votes, November looks like a safe win for the Democrats. In case it isn't obvious, I'm no statistician. What I am is the mother of an eighteen year old who I would rather see in college the next couple of years than possibly drafted into combat. I totally understand how Barbara Bush and Cheney's mama felt about sending their boys to war.
By the way, as bad as my math is, it wouldn't work at all if Hillary Clinton were the nominee. Obama supporters are less likely to switch parties if their guy gets the rug pulled out from under him, but they could definitely stay home. The real difference will be on the McCain side. Demoralized or not, the Republicans will turn out in droves to keep Mrs. Clinton out of the White House. I don't much like or approve of the reasons they'll do this, but I can face facts. That scenario is beyond my fertile imagination to estimate.
Labels: 2008 primary, hillary clinton, mccain, obama, presidential election
