<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Waiting to be disappointed</title>
	<atom:link href="http://recycledcontents.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/waiting-to-be-disappointed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://recycledcontents.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/waiting-to-be-disappointed/</link>
	<description>50% Post-Consumer, 100% Ours</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:49:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kristen</title>
		<link>http://recycledcontents.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/waiting-to-be-disappointed/#comment-81</link>
		<dc:creator>Kristen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://recycledcontents.wordpress.com/?p=107#comment-81</guid>
		<description>SLATE has a good article supporting your point of view here:  http://www.slate.com/id/2204597?wpisrc=newsletter</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SLATE has a good article supporting your point of view here:  <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2204597?wpisrc=newsletter" rel="nofollow">http://www.slate.com/id/2204597?wpisrc=newsletter</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jenn</title>
		<link>http://recycledcontents.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/waiting-to-be-disappointed/#comment-67</link>
		<dc:creator>Jenn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:58:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://recycledcontents.wordpress.com/?p=107#comment-67</guid>
		<description>I am convinced he&#039;s unconfirmable by the Senate for exactly these reasons, because, sadly, the Senate and politics and general have become a place where nuance is not invited.  But if he really is the most brilliant economic mind on the left -- which is how economists are talking about him -- then it makes me sad to see him disqualified for the manner in which he speaks instead of the content of his actions, you know?

But the guy he mentored who&#039;s the NY Fed chair is probably a good pick, too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am convinced he&#8217;s unconfirmable by the Senate for exactly these reasons, because, sadly, the Senate and politics and general have become a place where nuance is not invited.  But if he really is the most brilliant economic mind on the left &#8212; which is how economists are talking about him &#8212; then it makes me sad to see him disqualified for the manner in which he speaks instead of the content of his actions, you know?</p>
<p>But the guy he mentored who&#8217;s the NY Fed chair is probably a good pick, too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kristen</title>
		<link>http://recycledcontents.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/waiting-to-be-disappointed/#comment-66</link>
		<dc:creator>Kristen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:55:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://recycledcontents.wordpress.com/?p=107#comment-66</guid>
		<description>I think the context of the comments about gender and science was part of the problem.  Like, he came in a rehashed in a very un-eloquent way the prevailing arguments of the day without adding much to the discussion.

I&#039;ll accept that I don&#039;t have a clear view on this guy given the source on much of my information, but it seems to me that this might be one Clintonite he might do well to take a pass on, given the hard feelings some people harbor about the sexism of the primaries.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the context of the comments about gender and science was part of the problem.  Like, he came in a rehashed in a very un-eloquent way the prevailing arguments of the day without adding much to the discussion.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll accept that I don&#8217;t have a clear view on this guy given the source on much of my information, but it seems to me that this might be one Clintonite he might do well to take a pass on, given the hard feelings some people harbor about the sexism of the primaries.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jenn</title>
		<link>http://recycledcontents.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/waiting-to-be-disappointed/#comment-65</link>
		<dc:creator>Jenn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:48:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://recycledcontents.wordpress.com/?p=107#comment-65</guid>
		<description>I have to admit... I&#039;m not convinced he&#039;s a bad guy.  &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summers_memo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Africa memo&lt;/a&gt; was written by someone else, and the offensive part was a demonstrative ironic aside, not a policy he was actually advocating.   I can&#039;t disparage anyone for trying to be satirical.

The comments on men and women in faculty... I read &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the speech&lt;/a&gt; after he gave it, and the stuff that came out then, and I just re-read it now, and I don&#039;t find it a persuasively anti-feminist or anti-woman speech.  He offers three hypotheses, all drawn from papers on presentation at the conference he was attending, and he says he&#039;s going to try and provoke the audience, and then that&#039;s exactly what he does.  But along the way, he recognizes first that what he thinks is the most important hypothesis -- the one that should be studied and dealt with most immediately -- is whether our society as a whole had played a role in making it possible and preferable for men to be able to choose to have a family while working 80 hours a week while women are hardly ever offered the same opportunity.  Which... seems fairly reasonable to me.  The intrinsic aptitude part of the speech -- yeah, it&#039;s provocative, but he takes pains to say he&#039;s sure he&#039;s wrong, he&#039;s being unsubtle, etc., throughout the whole stretch.  (And the leading commentary on the speech in the article you cite is from a woman who walked out of the session and so probably didn&#039;t hear the entirety of the argument).

Everything I&#039;ve read about Summers (check this&lt;a href=&quot;http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E7D91E30F937A1575BC0A9659C8B63&amp;sec=&amp;spon=&amp;partner=permalink&amp;exprod=permalink&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;long form profile&lt;/a&gt; from when he was new to the job in 2004) makes him seem like a guy who has some big problems with political interaction but not as someone with bad intent in any of the areas that matter most to me.  In fact, he seems sort of like... well, like someone Obama would pick, in the Emanuel vein of hard-charging super-smart folks who can get stuff done.

But maybe I&#039;m missing something.  I would like to know, because I&#039;ve felt hesitant to engage in any of this debate so far, because I feel like I&#039;m missing a big piece.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to admit&#8230; I&#8217;m not convinced he&#8217;s a bad guy.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summers_memo" rel="nofollow">The Africa memo</a> was written by someone else, and the offensive part was a demonstrative ironic aside, not a policy he was actually advocating.   I can&#8217;t disparage anyone for trying to be satirical.</p>
<p>The comments on men and women in faculty&#8230; I read <a href="http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html" rel="nofollow">the speech</a> after he gave it, and the stuff that came out then, and I just re-read it now, and I don&#8217;t find it a persuasively anti-feminist or anti-woman speech.  He offers three hypotheses, all drawn from papers on presentation at the conference he was attending, and he says he&#8217;s going to try and provoke the audience, and then that&#8217;s exactly what he does.  But along the way, he recognizes first that what he thinks is the most important hypothesis &#8212; the one that should be studied and dealt with most immediately &#8212; is whether our society as a whole had played a role in making it possible and preferable for men to be able to choose to have a family while working 80 hours a week while women are hardly ever offered the same opportunity.  Which&#8230; seems fairly reasonable to me.  The intrinsic aptitude part of the speech &#8212; yeah, it&#8217;s provocative, but he takes pains to say he&#8217;s sure he&#8217;s wrong, he&#8217;s being unsubtle, etc., throughout the whole stretch.  (And the leading commentary on the speech in the article you cite is from a woman who walked out of the session and so probably didn&#8217;t hear the entirety of the argument).</p>
<p>Everything I&#8217;ve read about Summers (check this<a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E7D91E30F937A1575BC0A9659C8B63&amp;sec=&amp;spon=&amp;partner=permalink&amp;exprod=permalink" rel="nofollow">long form profile</a> from when he was new to the job in 2004) makes him seem like a guy who has some big problems with political interaction but not as someone with bad intent in any of the areas that matter most to me.  In fact, he seems sort of like&#8230; well, like someone Obama would pick, in the Emanuel vein of hard-charging super-smart folks who can get stuff done.</p>
<p>But maybe I&#8217;m missing something.  I would like to know, because I&#8217;ve felt hesitant to engage in any of this debate so far, because I feel like I&#8217;m missing a big piece.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
