Jenna Bush, NBC White House correspondent -- the American Meritocracy
They should convene a panel for the next Meet the Press with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it. They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it's really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment. They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency. Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz can provide moving commentary on how America is so special because all that matters is merit, not who you know or where you come from...It's time to embrace American royalty (via Making Light)Just to underscore a very important, related point: all of the above-listed people are examples of America's Great Meritocracy, having achieved what they have solely on the basis of their talent, skill and hard work -- The American Way. By contrast, Sonia Sotomayor -- who grew up in a Puerto Rican family in Bronx housing projects; whose father had a third-grade education, did not speak English and died when she was 9; whose mother worked as a telephone operator and a nurse; and who then became valedictorian of her high school, summa cum laude at Princeton, a graduate of Yale Law School, and ultimately a Supreme Court Justice -- is someone who had a whole litany of unfair advantages handed to her and is the poster child for un-American, merit-less advancement.
the latest
latest episodes
The really insidious part is that, having confirmed Sotomayor after raking her over the coals, they will then use that as the next example of 'anyone can make it here'!
It's difficult not to be blind to your own privilege -- and most people do think they work hard at their chosen profession. Hard work, however, is not rewarded in and of itself. Many people work hard all their lives while achieving very little if anything, while fuckups with wealthy and powerful families get all the perks.
Meritocracy is a myth to keep the proles slaving on for the aristocracy under the mostly mythical story that they too can win. At least ideas are cheaper than bullwhips.
Greenwald's argument is quite silly. Jenna Bush's new job speaks more about the requirements of being an NBC talking head then about the state of American meritocracy.
NBC judged, probably correctly, that Jenna's assets -- a famous name, as a result of growing up in the White House as the daughter of a president -- gave her plenty of merit as a White House correspondent. They would help her achieve NBC's primary goal of getting people to watch the Today show, in ways that other, more academic forms of merit would not. That's show business.
no, show business is honest in that it entertains. The Jenna thing is just another tick.
You know this is just the type of thing that would have me frothing at the mouth with impotent rage...but somehow it doesn't.
I'm perfectly okay with this, probably because I don't watch or think much of the Today show.
He needs to get a grip, it's not like she is the first person in the history of the USA to get ahead because of their family connections. I bet Chelsea Clinton got her recent plum job based solely on merit. Who her mom and dad were had nothing to do with it......
She got a good job, good for her. Get over it and grow up. Was one of Glen's relatives up for the job?
Life is not always fair, wear a helmet....
I do see the point he's trying to make. And it's a very valid point.
But seriously, shouldn't we wait and see how Jenna performs before we start to bash her? For all we know she might do a good job. And if she's even half decent, then she's on par with "regular" american journalists anyway.
And Ju2tin's point is a good one too; she can probably pull a few favors and get access many others can't.
It's ok to cry foul, but I think he should at least wait until we know it's a foul. Or is Glenn Greenwald trying to get in a "FIRST!" in the next chapter of Bush-bashing?
wait and see? And how many more deserving were cheated?
It's ok to cry foul, but I think he should at least wait until we know it's a foul.
You're right of course. I know for a fact that she has dreamed of such a job for her whole career, and she is clearly the best candidate - with all those years in the trenches, all those deadlines, those prizes for excellence and integrity... in short, all that 'hard work'.
I think some of you are missing the point.
The fact that who she is automatically makes her more valuable in real ways is just as much an issue as who she is giving her the ability to pull strings.
The central point is that she has advantages that have nothing to do with merit, all of those people do, whether they are skilled and work hard or not. And those advantages were crucial in them getting their present positions.
To be in that situation and rail that affirmative action derails our meritocracy requires a gigantic cognitive dissonance.
I bet Chelsea Clinton got her recent plum job based solely on merit.
Let's see:
- Chelsea Clinton has a Masters in International Relations from Oxford. Jenna Bush has a degree in English from The University of Texas at Austin.
- Chelsea Clinton graduated from Stanford; her undergraduate thesis topic was the 1998 Belfast Agreement in Northern Ireland. Jenna Bush was a legacy member of Kappa Alpha Theta, both her mother and twin sister's sorority.
Other than those things, they're pretty much identically qualified for 'plum jobs'.
Please, she's perfectly suited. Consider-- the purpose of a White House correspondent on a light n' fluffy morning newsoid show is to:
a) Deliver hard-hitting insightful commentary on difficult political issues or
b) Read the teleprompter correctly, be perky, and attract viewers.
She's got a pretty decent gimmick that might do the last part of b.
And if it makes you feel better, she got a lot less out of a relationship with a president than Hillary Clinton did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmJVTao4X-Y
Read all about it! Nepotism alive and well in the US! Read all about it! Rich white girl with connections jabs cush job!
I'm not saying he's wrong. But, Jesus, was he out for the job?in what way is that surprising? While many of the folks listed are clearly hypocrites regarding his example of sotomayor it isn't exactly news, or surprising. Or necessarily incorrect, from NBCs ratings minded goals.
But aside from that, how many people have gotten jobs based on their personal connections? I mean, I've gotten mine by making those connections and working them. People hire who they know, or in show business people hire people many other people know.
If that's the job she wanted and aggressively pursued it, exploiting whatever connections and characteristics she had, then why crap on her for that? I'm sure she'll say and do plenty ofthings that are criticizeable, but why on how she got her job? Did anyone here Ever turn down a job offer from someone they knew because it wasn't meritocratic enough? If she jumps the shark on air, it won't matter who her daddy is, particularly if that costs NBC money.
You go after what you want as hard as you can. And if you don't, you miss out. Again, though, if he was after this job and he missed it because of her, then I get the rant. Otherwise, go report on something newsworthy. There's a war on you know. And word is the US tortured and killed prisoners. Or conversely, I think apple is going to try and corner the market on tablet computers. Or, do you think cash for clunkers will get refunded? Or, how's this whole healthcare thing goig to end.
This just in, lion of the senate, the esteemed Edward Kennedy has passed. You know, I think he may have got his job based solely on nepotism. Look at what he did with it.
it's not like she is the first person in the history of the USA to get ahead because of their family connections.
Indeed, and had you read the piece you might even notice thas she's among a long list of people in America, RECENTLY, in one specific industry (the media, about which I am sure you, anonymous, have no complaints whatsoever), to get the prize without the merit.
Had she been named to the board of Lincoln Center or Ambassador to Palau, i suspect nobody would blink.
I'm willing to wager five American dollars that news coverage would be better if the reporters weren't part of the story, or a mere degree away from an axe grinder.
And if it makes you feel better, she got a lot less out of a relationship with a president than Hillary Clinton did.
Another ne'er-do-well who parlayed a worthless Yale law degree into a political career by marrying a lower middle class law student from Arkansas. The filth is bottomless.
Oh boy, they all got the fax on this one. I'm out.
@15- Would the fact that "Billy Beer" actually sold (slightly) more than six cans be a better example than Hillary?
Mdh @14 - I'd wager the same that news coverage would be better if consumers didn actively prefer their 'news' to be gift wrapped in their ideological package of preference as delivered by op-Ed talking heads masquerading as reporters.
Media outlets hire what sells ads. That's the consumers fault for wantonly gobbling it up.
futbol @ 18 - did you ever realize it's actually your fault, too?
When we are at war with Iran while Jenna busily describe the gowns at the gala remember your dismissive remarks well
futbol @18: nicely put. :-)
in fact, american news shows are the last ones i turn to for actual news these days.
for pure circus, however, they are doing a great job.
@20- It'll really disappoint me. I mean, the "Today" show has been long known to be America's leading hard-hitting news program.
Browsing over to its website, let's see what's making headlines:
"Go sweet and spicy with Caribbean crab cakes"
"The top 5 worst coffee drinks"
"President Obama back in DC after vacation" (Next line: He spends last day in Martha's Vineyard buying ice cream for his daughters).
So what does the white house correspondent for the Today show do? She reports what kind of cookie the President buys. (Oatmeal Raisin-- clearly indicating his good judgment)
Mdh @19 - ha. I like spectacles, shiny objects and shouting at the television. I'll not apologize for that. But suggesting it could be my fault too (which is probably fair on account of my being a wanton consumer of such) kind of makes my point for me.
@22 - that oatmeal raisin suggestion explains alot about our current healthcare debate, at least the white houses side. I'd say they got the scoop on the headline and accidentally fudged over the story. He wants something, nothing decadent though like a big chocolate cake. But, nothing bitter either, like a lemon merangue pie. Something simple in the middle. A treat, but just enough healthy in it to not be too far off the menu.
I'd say ace reporting and shite editing. Hopefully jennas spunk and flair for demanding what she wants willmake up for that.
@21 - I know it's cliche, but i like my point and counterpoint from Stewart and colbert.
Just so long as you're both clear that you don't expect better.
@25- MDH. Completely-- it's housefrau entertainment with a touch of news thrown in, probably just to give the house-bound viewer some sense of the wider world, thus delaying the moment they kill the kids or start using meth out of sheer social claustrophobia and boredom.
She's not going to be a White House correspondent.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26596.html#ixzz0PkHTUaOj
"The 27-year-old teacher at a Baltimore charter school, who has already penned two books, will serve as a once-a-month contributor on topics such as education, Jim Bell, the show's executive producer, told the wire."
The apologists in this thread are hilarious, nevermind that the Today show is where Katie Couric got her network break. One wonders how many rail against the lameness of the mass media on one hand before saying that it won't matter, here, in the other.
And of course, this development can only be about one thing. We may argue about what that one thing is, but it's clear that some people feel that it cannot be about the trappings of privilege. Too bad there weren't any more qualified people available who had never been arrested for using their grandmother's ID to buy alcohol.
Futbol789: Read the stories out there (easy to find), she didn't "go for it" at all. It dropped in her lap unbeckoned.
@27 - my point isn't so much that it doesn't matter that news is fairly broken these days, as much as it is that nepotism didn't cause it.
As far as whether she went for it or not, I've no basis to judge the merits of that. It may be so, or it may be that other story writers have their own axes to grind. I don't know how hard she went for it, but mainline news jobs don't really just fall out of the sky. Entertainment color commentary jobs may, but that is a completely different animal.
But even if it did fall out of the sky, were you in her spot would you turn it down? My masters program coordinator called me up one day and was like what do you want do? I answered and she gave me a phone number and a recommendation which resulted in a job a week later. I most definitely did not say "well ma'am, I appreciate the offer, but it just wouldn't be right if I took it."
baseless nepotism, the pure unadulterated jobs for related tweedledees, doesn't work consistently unless the place is already broken. It can grease the downfall, but it doesn't cause it. And if it isn't baseless, because she meets some metric or adds value in someway that satisfies the shows producers, than she keeps the job. The show may be broken, but she didn cause it.
I mean what exactly is the definition of "more qualified". It's a stupid expression.
@mdh - I'm definitely not saying I anticipate improvement. I just try and get several version of a news story if I'm interested, combined with my own research in the subject. If I don't care about the story, I usually change the channel to one of the shamwow infomercials.
@27- Nah, I'd just call it knee-jerk ressentiment by people who go through life alone and broke, without advantageous social networks.
There's no great privileged/unprivileged switch, this works at all scales:
If your buddy works at McDonald's, you might get an extra mcnugget or two in the box.
If uncle Vito owns a furniture store, you're probably going to get a better deal on a couch than the shmuck who just walked in off the street.
@29 - exactly
How is this different from Caroline Kennedy almost getting Hillary Clinton's seat in the Senate merely for having a famous last name?
After clicking through to the actual AP story, this:
How has this bit of nonnews been distorted to read that Jenna Bush has been hired as a White House correspondent? Glenn Greenwald quoted the AP as saying, "NBC's "Today" show has hired someone with White House experience as a new correspondent...". Based on this information, Cory then leaps to the conclusion that Jenna has been hired as a White House correspondent.
The real outrage is that they are probably paying her more than my annual salary to work "about once a month".
Jenna Bush. Celebrity teacher. On the Today show. Talking about "things like education". Puh-leez.
Who knows? Maybe she will actually have something insightful to say. I'm not holding my breath, and I'm certainly not tuning in to NBC to find out. However, if any of you omniscient beings out there actually monitor this stuff (Tak?), please report back in this thread in a few months to let us know how she's doing.
The appeal to "meritocracy" is in 99% of the cases pure BS to preserve the unfair and unjust status quo.
All other things equal, if someone puts in more effort or has a more dangerous profession then that merits higher pay. But no one regardless works twice as hard as anyone working full time as a first grade school teacher or caretaker of the elderly. So any salary more than two times higher than that of those and similar low income workers isn't based on merit. The best way to start fixing that great injustice is to establish "single-payer" services that all citizens have equal access to, like single payer universal healthcare. Here the US has a lot to learn from the scandinavian welfare state approach.
@33- It's not about how hard you work. It's about how much people value what you do.
Otherwise, J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" books and a seven-volume series of slash fanfic about Harry and Ron ought to earn their creators the same amount of dough, assuming both required equal typing, right?
@cicada: what this at root "is about" is justice and fairness. We live in a world of great economic inequalities. Can that be justified? One attempt is merit based inequality. Then that needs to be fleshed out. One way is effort. But that clearly can't justify great inequalities. Another would be market value. That can't justify much difference either. Rowling's was born into a great family, good schooling and so on. Nature has endowed her with great intelligence and talent. None of that is earned. She has no doubt put in more effort than most. There is no merit based reason for her having more that two times the income of any full time low income worker. Regardless of how great a writer she is, she has not greater right to get her basic health needs satisfied than what other citizens have. Yet in the US such great inequality is the norm.
It is one of the saddest facts in life: You nearly never get a job because of what you've learned, what you are, how competent you are in your field.
You get a job because of who you know. Connection always weighs out competence.
Sure it's unfair. But how can you change a system that's been working at least since Kain & Abel, Izanami and Izanagi?
Life is unfair.
Just the way it is.
@35- And the obvious way to handle it is to acknowledge that justice and fairness are essentially meaningless concepts.
If it upsets you that people have little, fine work to remedy that, but don't claim that there's some cosmic rule being violated.
Also, you're looking at things from the flipside with healthcare-- you're implying that someone has an obligation to perform healthcare for someone else, rather than being free to demand whatever price they wish for it. Rowling, by the way, could reasonably not only hire a personal physician but likely build her own small and cozy hospital solely for herself...would you suggest that no doctor should work there or contractor build the building, or company sell her the equipment to fill it until the wretches on the street have been taken care of? Do you own the labor of the doctor and the contractor and the medical equipment supplier, that you can dictate what they do?
@cicada: Right on man! Look at all those fools throughout history, whining that "slavery is unjust" and "withholding women the possibility to vote is unfair" and "child labor should be abolished" and on and on. Why did they not just quit their meaningless tirades and accept that life is unfair. Irritating bastards, really!
Or not. Life is not unfair, people make it so. That has been changed and can be changed further. Fighting economic inequality is one step on the way.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/
@38 Of course life is unfair. Kids get born with no legs. Everybody's body deteriorates over time. Sickness is universal. We get hot, we get cold, we need to eat almost constantly to survive. Our cells mutate and kill us. Our genes fall apart. Occasionally, shit just blows up and wipes out a town or hurricanes come though, and once in a while people just get annihilated by bolts of electricity from the sky. Some people are born never able to feed themselves or think properly. Some kids age to death in a matter of a couple dozen years. Life is unbelievably unfair, in every particular.
How can Glenn unironically talk about American Royalty and not mention the Kennedys? Missed opportunity there I suppose.
@Cicada - Of course there isn't a cosmic rule being violated here. There's a human rule being violated here.
Justice and fairness, like most abstract moral concepts, were invented because life is unfair, and frequently miserable as a result. We can do better. The universe doesn't care - which is why we must.
P.S. As I live in the UK... I've no idea why you think the existence of the NHS somehow magically prevents doctors from negotiating their salary, or indeed from working privately. (But then, I've never understood why the US is so proud of its decidedly non-free-market health system; the US currently enjoys all of the drawbacks of a socialised system, all of the cost inefficiencies of a heavily regulated bureacracy, and none of the benefits of either.)
Rowling could indeed build her own private hospital. But she'd have trouble staffing it, seeing as most doctors would rather work at a job where they're well paid and doing something useful ;)
All you describe are facts about how things are in the world. That is not unfair per se. Unfairness is when people can act do remedy the situation but opt not to.
Anyway, regardless of what your reasoning in contradictory here. When some people "are born never able to feed themselves or think properly" the right thing to do is to help them. They have a moral right to our assistance. No one would say "life's unfair" and leave the child to rot and starve to death. But acknowledging that is to accept the moral pull of fairness. That pull is in full effect in matters of economic justice too.
my #41 was a reply to Cicada's #39
Meh. Jenna Hager, Maria Shriver, whatever. Its not like I watch NBC's Today show.
Jenna's current job is also pretty suspect. She's fresh out of college and gets a teaching job at a charter school? Unless the job market has changed dramatically since I was an English teacher looking for a job, it seems pretty unlikely that a brand new grad would get such a job.
I really need to get around to starting that secret society of former poor kids dedicated to making success easy for the connection-challenged students of today.
If you can't join 'em, beat 'em. That will be our motto. Only in Latin.
I once tried to "break into" TV: but the cameras kept breaking instead!
Only good-looking people get to be on TV....darn.
It's the same all over. Here in Canada we have the son of the former prime minister hosting a celeb show. He is so smarmy and has fiberglass hair..Ugh. Forget Jenna Bush, has anyone mentioned that Billy Bush on access hollywood is also part of the Bush family.
*sigh* remember in the 5 minutes before nine-eleven when it was alright to report on the Bush twins' excessive drinking?
life is unfair? Good. Then you won't mind me bashing you on the head and taking your stuff.
Trans-Fehhhr-Ahhnce!
The lack of a meritocracy in this country goes deeper than hiring journalists based solely on their last name; it goes to the core of an entrenched ruling class in this country and how it was nearly destroyed by that ruling class. All go to the same universities; half take positions, their fathers had before them, in Washington the other half head to Wall Street. We are left living with the messes continuously created by these inbreds.
The biggest disappointment in choosing Supreme Court Justices is, apparently there are only 3 law schools in this country.
Apparently, Genghis Khan was a real stickler about running his army and government as strict meritocracies, ignoring wealth, family connections, and even ethnicity (Mongols were not favored in the Mongol Empire). The exception, naturally, was his own family.
[/historical tidbit]
People are missing the point here. The problem is hypocrisy, not just nepotism. Greenwald is looking at how official ideology works in this country to maintain the illusion that we live in a meritocracy.
It's not only that Jenna Bush got a job because of her connections. It's that she part of a political class (populated through nepotism) that nonetheless decries affirmative action and other 'unfair advantages' for minorities at every opportunity. While holding the line officially that America is and always should be nothing but a pure meritocracy, Jenna and her ilk are catapulted to top positions in the press and government because of who their parents are.
Greenwald's comparison with Sotomayor is apt. Here is someone who the Right ridiculed as an affirmative action case, and therefore unfit for the job. Meanwhile, many corporate media talking heads and people in government(listed by Greenwald) benefited from a system of affirmative action that is more exclusive and more powerful than anything a Puerto Rican girl from the Bronx could ever experience.
#47:
*sigh* remember in the 5 minutes before nine-eleven when it was alright to report on the Bush twins' excessive drinking?
Yes, and if they were anyone else, that kind of public misbehavior would have prevented them from getting a lot of jobs (especially high-profile work like this Today gig).
Dunno about that, LB. What kind of public misbehavior are we talking? Getting drunk a few times in college (I actually don't know - media damage control successful!)? What jobs would that prevent one from getting?
#5 So don't bitch about someone by saying they got ahead by affermative action. Why is it ok to get in for having the right name instead?
The line between entertainment and politics is thin so this article has a valid point. If you don't see it you are blind.
#5 "Life is not always fair, wear a helmet...."
The reason Life is not always fair is because people like you think it's fine that life is not fair.
That being said, only an idiot watches TV news.
Reading all the WHO'S-THIS-GUYs and BUT-WHAT-ABOUTSs, I'm honestly stunned. Bandying around the "What, was he up for the job?" line, you'd think Jenna Bush's PR team dosed everyone on a bad mix of ecstasy & meth and unleashed them on the big bad UCLA attorney who had the audacity to get snippy with our All-American Girl.
For the record, I have once or twice seen people miss the point to a greater degree than this, so kudos for squeezing just under the hyperbole of a Youtube comments section. I didn't catch any "What, were there no child rapists to defent?" cracks, but maybe that's just from glossing over too quickly.
So what some of you are saying is, since it's happened before, or it's already broken for other reasons, there's no need whatsoever to discuss this? He's, in essence, an idiot for mentioning it?
This feels like the first time discovering intellectual laziness is entrenched in our very DNA.
And hey, thanks for enriching us all with the "meh" garbage. You guys are the real heroes.
Absolutely stunned.
It didn't take this thread very long to drift.
People using family connections to get plum jobs is a fact of life. I can live with that. When they bleat that merit alone got them those jobs, proving the US is a meritocracy (and therefore affirmative action isn't needed), then their every word is a turd, falling out of their mouths, into my drink.
And many of those same people wonder why they're losing audiences to bloggers and commentators who reason more honestly or else aim straight for the reptilian brain (sometimes both).
Travelina, I would say that it's exactly the same. And just supports the author's point.
Being born of privlige doesn't preclude ability, but it doesn't guarantee it either...
I must say, I'm a little put-off by the Sonya Sotomayor "example," she is far from the only Supreme Court Justice to emerge from hardship:
Clarence Thomas (only the second African-American to serve as a Supreme Court Justice) is one current example:
Where were Sonia Sotomayor's supporters when Clarence Thomas was going through the nomination process? I don't recall them celebrating the hardships he overcame...
No,Travelina , no, DCulberson: people get to vote on those people who aspire to an elective office once or previously held by their parent....these "journos"(or are they "opinion leaders"? or "role models"?) are appointed.
You know, kinda like when GW Bush was "appointed" by the Rehnquist Supreme Court - that majority itself was made up of Republican appointees.
It's a different kettle of fish, when everyone gets a vote...I "vote" for these "pundits" by ignoring them and the rotten "shows" they appear on. If everybody did the same, they'd be gone, toot sweet.
Oh the "joys" of a controlled news media, eh?
That being said, it is not uncommon for talent and skill to "run in a family". But people born rich are more than usually worthless to others: lucky for them they've already got some $$, eh? Although that's no "fault of their own"...
MDH offered:
You're not contending that she'll be "easier" on the current administration, having a blood relation to the previous administration, are you? That seems unlikely.
I honestly expect her to provide color commentary on goings-on inside the WH, and having spent 8 years in the WH will lend some insight... (considering the Princess Diana-like fascination many have with the current administration I think it was a coup for NBC)
She is a WH correspondent for the Today Show, not the Senior Political Analyst at NBC...
"Where were Sonia Sotomayor's supporters when Clarence Thomas was going through the nomination process? I don't recall them celebrating the hardships he overcame..."
This is a frustrating comparison because on the bench Clarence Thomas has demonstrated a consistent and even radical opposition to the kind of affirmative action that benefited him. Clarence Thomas was essentially a government bureaucrat who had only served part of a year as a judge before Bush moved him up to the supreme court. In a pure meritocracy would Clarence Thomas have gotten the job? Almost certainly not. And yet his decisions outlaw the same kinds of considerations that got him on the bench.
So much in this thread is missing the point. It's not just nepotism that's a problem, or that 'life is unfair.' As Greenwald points out, the people who benefit from nepotism use their positions of power to perpetuate the illusion that America is a pure meritocracy. And, in fact, they often enshrine that illusion into law for everyone else, especially minorities. That's what Clarence Thomas has done and is doing even though he personally benefited from factors unrelated to 'pure merit.'
Yes blacksquare: hypocrisy, too, can "run in the family".
Typically, nepotism can flourish where talent does not really matter...look at, fer instance, Hollywood. Did not Michael Ovitz not once claim that he could make anybody a "star"?
OTOH nepotism as the sole or primary determinant in filling an otherwise skills-based position of power almost always leads to disaster, eg the last Presidency: or military command in general (no pun intended!).
Merit counts for the most, when the job has the most serious consequences, if there's a failure of performance. If the job is such that a screw-up would hurt nobody and cost nothing, then why not give it to the slow cousin/brother/daughter?
That being said, my excellent physician comes from a long line of physicians: my excellent lawyer has four generations of lawyers preceding her, in her family. My mechanic too, is the son of mechanics. As is my funeral director...
Finally: merit and chance are so intertwined in all of our lives, that teasing them apart may serve little purpose.
I have observed that people of ability hate to admit to others that chance had any role at all in their success. People do have their pride, after all. My hope (for the sake of truth) is that they may be more honest with themselves, as to how much merit and chance may have commingled in their usually arduous (and successful) climb to the pinnacle.
#53:
Well, for one, teaching. Administrators tend to frown upon *documented* misbehavior because parents (and kids) tend to be unforgiving.
It doesn't matter if it was in college.
I am so glad this trend is being noticed. One of the many tentacles closing in on us. It scares me that people accept this talking head shell game as easily as they absorb the distortions that these newly embedded propagandists broadcast.
I like all the life-isn't-fair comments. Wow, amazing insight. It should be shared with all the people Greenwald mentioned. They seem to think they've attained influence thanks to a meritocracy, which obviously is a lie. So they fight anything that might reveal that lie, which could threaten their power. Isn't that the problem? Even if you don't watch American TV news shows, lots of people do, and it's >>"Unfair"
To complain that we shouldn't complain because it's fair to lie about how fair society is because society is unfair, is... confusing to me.
Just because life isn't meant to be fair doesn't mean you can't bitch about it, debate it, maybe even change it in some small way. Geez. I seem to remember better reporting than what Jenna Bush and Liz Cheney are offering. Maybe I'm old.
As for Uncle Clarence Thomas, as I recall, the real hardship he had to overcome was in his pants.
futbol789 #18:
I'd wager the same that news coverage would be better if consumers didn actively prefer their 'news' to be gift wrapped in their ideological package of preference as delivered by op-Ed talking heads masquerading as reporters.
I'm not so sure that people prefer their coverage that way, it's just that a few years ago the networks realized that they could save a buttload of cash by having ill-informed ideologues scream at cameras from the comfort of their studios instead of paying correspondents to travel the world asking tough questions.
Networks will air what gives them the best return on their money, not what gets the most viewers.
It's hard to take Greebwald, who has engaged in sock-puppetry, serious.
Whenever Glenn Grenwald gets pissed off I feel a little better about things. He's a great guard dog.
In my lifetime: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Leslie King (Gerald Ford), Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama. Running dogs or meritocrats?
@#57, Yeah, but Clarence Thomas is a mean prick.
@brainspore
Networks will air what gives them the best return on their money, not what gets the most viewers.
Not necessarily true. Phil Donahue was cancelled by MSNBC when the war started, fearing he'd be too 'liberal' and despite having the highest rated show for the network. CNN kept Glen Beck's show on for a long time, despite having barrel-bottom numbers.
And Fox, well Fox has always been nothing more than Rupert Murdoch's electronic id.
Anonymous @55 gets it: Greenwald identifies a long list of talkers and pols who are the beneficiaries of a massive right wing welfare program, and use their position to rail against any kind of non-merit-based assistance for anyone else.
And Timothy Hutton @63 misses completely with attempting equivalence between Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas. Sotomayor is a successful judge with experience, Thomas was elevated despite being a fifth-rate bureaucrat with almost no experience. We can be pretty confident she will be a competent justice, while he's turned out to be a shitty justice by any measure except how often he votes with Scalia.
Jenna launched the FEED brand and that entire humanitarian effort. She's a public figure in her own right.
@72 - I think that's fair and a part of the picture. But from 4pmish until the close of the day when repeats start all three major news networks air op-ed shows. Some are better at opining with the world of facts than others, but they are all op-ed men.
That isn't just because they are a better return, it's because those shows generate better ad money because more people will watch them.
DWITTSF,
"Uncle Clarence" is a racist shot. Wanna re-think, maybe?
Buddy, no, I don't. I'd say the same about Michael Steele, and Condoleeza Rice.
So how does one "earn" a gig where you show up once a month, anyway?
Uncle Condoleeza(sic)?
Calling an older African-American man "Uncle" is considered insulting; as is calling an older African-American woman "Aunt." It is evocative of slavery and its humiliations.
I think that it was a reference to Uncle Tom's Cabin, not to Aunt Jemima.
I'm comfortable with comparing Justice Scalia to Simon Legree, but I don't think Justice Thomas has the strength of character of Stowe's Uncle Tom.
Who said anything about Aunt Jemima?
I remember that some years ago in San Francisco a couple of clueless white guys wanted to open a pseudo-soul food restaurant that would have table waitresses dressed like her.
BIG fail.
Strikes me (and apologies if i've missed any posts) that this isn't about nepotism at all... it's about the media, particularly tv, choosing 'celebrities' to sell their shows (or column inches) ahead of unknowns who actually have educated understanding to contribute...
Seriously, so many commenters have completely missed the point. There isn't supposed to be a "ruling class" in a democracy. That's plutocracy - go look it up. It's what we in the US now have and it blows big stinky chunks. It's the reason we still have to suffer economic bubbles/busts. It's the reason war is profitable (to a select few). It's the reason why poverty is becoming an ever-increasing state of affairs for the "average" US citizen.
Thus it has been for 10,000 years. As soon as social relationships were defined by property instead of kinship, there was a ruling class. It's built into the system. Good Tom Jefferson dreamed of a democratic agrarian society that never existed anywhere on earth. Dedicated slavemaster and whoremonger that he was, he was probably blind to the fact that he was actually a plutocrat.
The Bushes are front-rank plutocrats, with all the accompanying advantages.
I am now laughing at people who believe in the existance of meritocracies.
What exactly are the Bushes thinking? Or is that part hard for them? What about NBC then? They actually think the parents of troops maimed in !raq and Afghanistan, not to mention killed --families rendered destitute by Bush-Cheney policies -- Americans embarrassed about revelations that Cheney authorized torture that in some cases degenerated into outright atrocity will be able to watch her? A Bush twin leering at them with that inherited smirk? A potent reminder of all we are still paying for from her family's blunders? She's no Ron Reagan. And come on, W, Laura: do you really need the money? Give the kids a couple mill to play with and let someone who has worked hard for their qualifications AND NEEDS THE !NCOME take the job!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/education/06homeless.html?_r=1