BlogHer - michelle obama - Comments

American Princess-Your posts

Norma156 — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:18:23 -0500

American Princess-Your posts are charming...and interesting. What a marvelous writer you are.

I lived in Chicago for many years and love the city.

That said, I can't imagine why anyone is supporting the Olympics there. You (we) can't afford these circuses. Oh, but maybe they're designed to take our tiny minds off other issues. Somewhere in history, hmm, I can't think where, this was tried. And you know what happened to those boys.

BTW, did anyone notice Michelle complaining it was such a sacrifice to go to Denmark to present the case for Chicago? No mention of the sacrifice Chicagoans are just expected to make.

Another soul-less bastard heard from

vomviersen — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:01:32 -0500

This soul-less bastard has lived within the city limits of Chicago since 1979 and has a spouse employed by the City of Chicago. As long as city services for "ordinary people" are in the sorry state they are, I cannot support having the Olympics in Chicago. Yes, I admit I'm taking it very personally. There is no way that at least part of the money being spent on the chase for the Olympics did not come from we-the-taxpayers. And CFD and CPD are still without current contracts and that is a huge sore spot to me.

The last time I was at Washington Park was for a dog sports event. May I say that I was extremely glad to have a protection trained dog (albeit a retired one) in my vehicle on the way to and from the park.

I don't think seven years is enough time to whip this city into the shining miracle on the lakefront that it is being presented as to those who don't know any better. And certainly not without more of your, and my, money.

My big regret is that we'll still be 5+ years away from retirement age and the ability to leave Chicago and Illinois when 2016 rolls around.

vomviersen :: Kathi Wilson
http://rottweilers.brilliant-disguise.net/

soul-less bastard raising hand

Denise — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 06:21:18 -0500

As TW said when she read your post yesterday - "Go American Princess!" We're all going to have to pay for the Olympic Village - sigh.

~Denise BlogHer Community Manager
Flamingo House Happenings

World's Fair Part 2?

Willful Woman — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:13:41 -0500

Over here in New England I was wondering how every day Chicagoans (sp?) were feeling about the possibility of hosting the Olympics. I remember reading accounts of folks in Beijing who were displaced by the building of their Olympic extravaganza. Their lives were forever changed by a 2-3 week sporting event. It's certainly a complex story as you present it.

I'm not sure what to wish for. I hope you get tickets for badminton?

Willful Woman @ www.besidethestonewall.com

Mattel Toys Exempt From Toy Safety Test Law

SharonMcEachern — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:18:13 -0500

I love our First Lady. And at the same time I'm worried about national health care and our federal regulators who are not doing their jobs.

My prime example is about lead-poisoning -- the number one environment illness of children in the U.S. Mattel, the world's largest toymaker, and its subsidiary Fischer-Price, are responsible for huge toy recalls in the U.S. because of lead-painted and lead-tainted toys -- some 20 million two years ago. Because of this unprecedented amount of recalls, Congress passed legislation last year, setting strict mandates on lead, lead paint and phthalate levels. The law now requires third-party, independent testing of all products for children 12 years old and younger for all manufacturers --everyone except Mattel.

The federal regulator, the Consumer Product Safety Commisssion, SECRETLY EXEMPTED MATTEL. It was Mattel's toys which prompted the legislation in the first place; yet the giant toymaker got a pass. Mattel does not want independent safety testing of its toys; they're going to test their own toys. Huh? So much for objective testing. How come the Feds are being lenient on the worst offender endangering American kids with lead poisoning? Some cozy relationship between government and big business. Ethic Soup has a great piece on this at:

http://www.ethicsoup.com/2009/09/mattel-secretly-exempt-from-safety-law-toy-testing.html

I am surprised that Mattel is still selling toys, like nothing happened. I expected a parent boycott. Especially since Mattel is still have the majority of its toys made in China, a country that continues makes its own children deathly ill with lead-poisoning.

I wish Michelle Obama could address this issue. Her vegetable garden and eating healthy doesn't seem to matter as much if our kids are getting lead-poisoning from their new toys.

Hear! Hear!

penelopesdream — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:42:41 -0500

I am new to this venue and I'm not an American but I have had to dependent upon the American health care system to save my life. I am Canadian but I lived in Los Angeles for 5 years while studying. When I was six months pregnant I suffered a brain injury as a result of a congenital defect. Both my son and I could have died. Fortunately, because the program I was with provided health care, I was shipped off to UCLA medical centre and was treated by some of the best doctors America has to offer. I may not be here today if I hadn't had that health insurance. That's not, however, why I'm writing to comment. What I found to be incredibly mistifying, completely incomprehensible, was trying to figure out what I had to pay, for what and when. I was recovering from a brain injury, it's true, but I did have two university degrees even before I arrived in the US and I was at an absolute loss to sort out what was expected of me (not to mention confused that I had to do or pay anything because yes, I'm one of those socialist Canadian types). I'm no genius but I am at least somewhat educated and English is my first language. What struck me and strikes me still, is not simply the way this system puts women at a clear disadvantage but also anyone of visible or invisible minorities (and we all know what that means for women of these minorities).

I'm with you, even from way up North!

The problem with flex-time

PunditMom — Mon, 18 May 2009 09:01:36 -0500

You are right on this point. Many moms I know extoll the virtues of being able to leave work for sick kids or attending school functions, but the "flexibility" part is really being more available -- 24/7.

I often complain about this with Mr. PunditMom and his BlackBerry -- he might be home at 6:30 p.m. for dinner, but he's expected to stay connected with that thing until 11 p.m. or later. We need for flex-time NOT to be viewed as a workplace with no boundaries, and that may be hard to come by.

They're all about flexibility when it comes to working longer

Cat H — Mon, 18 May 2009 08:10:07 -0500

I hear you on the issues with flexible hours and realistic leave policies, but, in my experience, it's hard enough to get your employer to back off even the traditional "off" days and hours in the age of email, texting and the Blackberry.

Many employees are expected to be available to answer phone calls and email at all hours or teleconference in at night and on vacation. Many companies seem to be all about flexibility when it comes to working *more,* (taking calls, emails, etc. at home) butit doesn't work both ways.

You're right ..

PunditMom — Fri, 15 May 2009 12:33:18 -0500

...balance is needed by everyone and these are important issues regardless of family status. Thanks for pointing out Paua's post, which is fabulous, too.

It is wrong that there is an underlying current that employers, if they offer leave and flexibility, have different expectations of employees without children -- that was definitely my experience at the law firm before I was married and before PunditGirl arrived.

What puzzles me is why employers don't get how much money they would save in the long run. That's one reason the big accounting firms are so far ahead in this area -- they are number crunchers and discovered years ago that flexibility and benefits were more about retaining good employees than it was about anything else -- which, in the end, means more money for them!

Not just for families

Maria Niles — Fri, 15 May 2009 12:17:32 -0500

I suspect you've hit the nail on the head regarding CVWF. These industry groups (like similar efforts in the healthcare debate) tend to form to offer "voluntary" reform because their lobbying efforts might not be sufficient to prevent legislation from being passed that they don't want.

If a focus on families generates change, great, but we need these policies, period for all workers regardless of their family status (see Paula G's great post, policies targeted at families don't always fit gay families or singles). I forget what the percentage was but I was shocked by the very large number of workers who don't have any sick leave. This was in conjunction with a story about the swine flu scare and the very welcome recommendation that people who had the flu or symptoms stay home rather than risk infecting their co-workers. Hard to do if the trade off is risking your job at a time of massive job loss and unemployment.

Bottom line, everyone needs balance and we'd do well as a society to see people as human and not replaceable cogs.

BlogHer Contributing Editor
PopConsumer
Beyond Help

I don't disagree ...

PunditMom — Tue, 12 May 2009 10:14:12 -0500

.. I just wish that wasn't the focus of the media coverage. Maybe if the media spent less time worrying about her shoes and more time actually talking about and reporting on hunger and poverty, something would really change for those who need it.

Can you imagine Eleanor

Norma156 — Sun, 10 May 2009 19:39:40 -0500

Can you imagine Eleanor Roosevelt pulling this kind of stunt?

I hope the media continues to "shine the light" on Michelle's good works. Like starting a kitchen garden with a bunch of kids, but not letting them have any of the produce.

Love is blind, isn't it?

If Michelle had the

Norma156 — Sun, 10 May 2009 19:36:49 -0500

If Michelle had the appropriate level of sensitivity or "care" for the families, she would have known that the media, who after all, aren't all fools, would pick up on her sartorial splendor. She would have known that that would be the story. I can't remember what bread line she was promoting, but I sure do remember metallic pink sneakers. (Frankly, I'd never seen or heard of them before and I cannot imagine buying a pair under any circumstances at all since they really are awful looking.)

But wearing them in a homeless situation...jeez...come on. It's PR101.

And, yeah, I think that poor people, who are "beneficiaries" of Michelle's occasional largesse notice. I know I sure as heck would if I were in the bread line with a couple of hungry children.

Some things just aren't appropriate...like don't flaunt your wealth in front of people who are hungry or jobless.

Don't you get that? You think that's nice? Or sensitive?

It is interesting, however, to see liberals complain about media coverage of Michelle.

Tabloid obsession

PunditMom — Sun, 10 May 2009 09:30:37 -0500

Maria, You have nailed this tempest on the head. It's so much easier for the media to think up a story criticizing her shoes (which really takes no time or effort) than to get into why Michelle Obama is trying to spend time at food banks with so many Congressional spouses. Why, they might actually have to interview someone!

Or, they might have to spend some time investigating the real state of homelessness, hunger and poverty in our country. But I guess that wouldn't sell newspapers, would it?

Appropriateness?

PunditMom — Sun, 10 May 2009 09:28:02 -0500

Then where is the line on appropriateness for the media coverage? Isn't it more "appropriate" for real coverage of bringing attention to the homeless than to her kicks?

While I'm sure we won't be seeing Michelle wear those shoes out in public again anytime soon, do you really think the families who benefited from the time and effort Michelle and 100 Congressional spouses gave really care how much she spent on her shoes? It's not like she spent federal money on them.

Two words -- red. herring.