text:
On this episode of Recode Media, journalist Rebecca Traister talked with Peter Kafka about how she got interviews with Hillary Clinton both before and after the 2016 election. Clinton is not Traister's only topic — she writes about gender and politics for New York magazine and other outlets.
You can read some of the highlights from the interview at the link above, or listen to it in the audio player below. We've also provided a lightly edited complete transcript of their conversation.
If you like this, be sure to subscribe to Recode Media on Apple Podcasts, Google Play Music, TuneIn, Stitcher or SoundCloud.
Peter Kafka: This is Recode Media with Peter Kafka. That's me. I'm part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm sitting here with Rebecca Traister. She's an author. She's the writer at large at New York magazine. You may have seen her stuff at The Cut, which is also New York magazine, so go to New York magazine to read her.
Rebecca Traister: It is, though it's its own thing.
You're also at Elle. You write many books. When I think of you, I think of gender. That's your focus, right?
You're an author and reporter or journalist who focuses on gender and women specifically, right?
Yeah. I used to describe myself: "I write about women in politics, media and entertainment."
That's a better way than saying gender.
Well, it's a lot of gender. It's a lot of race. It's class. I wrote a book about unmarried women. I think in the past couple of years, journalistically, it's been a lot more about women in politics, in part because there was a presidential race.
Heard about that.
Right. It's felt like it's more political, but historically, I was also writing about women in pop culture and cultural criticism from a feminist perspective. I write from a feminist perspective.
I want to talk about all of that, and I also want to talk about Hillary Clinton. There's two great pieces about Hillary Clinton. You've written a bunch but two seminal ones. One was about a year ago.
It was exactly a year.
One was a couple months ago now or maybe a month and a half ago.
A month. They were both published on Memorial Day weekend in 2016 and then 2017. By accident, it was coincidence that they were a year apart.
Listen to the rest of the podcast, and then go [read] these pieces. They're great pieces. One of them, I made sure that Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg read prior to interviewing Hillary at Code a couple of weeks ago.
They did a great interview.
It was a really interesting interview. I want to start by talking about how you ended up on the Hillary Clinton beat. I think you just spelled it out, right? It's just a logical extension of what you were doing.
Yeah, to some extent. I was very lucky. You really want to go back a little bit?
We can go awhile, all the way back, but one of the important things about both of these articles is you got a lot of access to Hillary Clinton, who famously doesn't like the press. The most recent article, you had her first major exit interview.
Right. That actually brings up an interesting thing about the evolution of my writing about Hillary Clinton. How I wound up writing about Hillary Clinton or then more largely women in politics goes back actually to 2003 and 2004 when I got a job at Salon.com, which at that point was not known totally for its reporting. I'd come from the New York Observer.
This was the original, webby commentary.
It was a webby. It was a lot of cultural criticism. Jake Tapper had been there as a political journalist. There was political reporting, but the job that I was hired for, I'd come from the New York Observer where I'd been a fact-checker and I'd written about the film business. I was not writing about gender.
Didn't you get tossed out of a event by Harvey Weinstein?
I did.
That was the dramatic highlight of my early journalistic life. I was hired to write for the Life section of Salon. That was what had used to been called Mother's Who Think. It was everything that didn't fall under the category of politics, business, movie, book criticism. It was a squishy category meant to say women's stuff, right. At that point, 2003 and 2004, there was not a robust feminist media. We forget that because we now have a feminist blogosphere, right, and a feminist media. Major outlets have their own feminist staff writers. That was not the case.
Rattle off what feminist media means today in 2017.
Today, it means that there are writers at every publication, whether you're talking about Michelle Goldberg at Slate, whether you're talking about me and many of my colleagues at The Cut and at New York magazine. Jezebel is a publication that was an offshoot of Gawker that publishes entirely content about women from a largely feminist perspective. Those who are there now might disagree with my characterization of it, but that's certainly historically what it's been.
Media properties, websites, and then people whose beats within some of the broader websites or publications whose job it is to write about women from a feminist perspective. We're to assume that's the case.
Right, whether or not they use the word feminist, they're looking at gender and power.
I think you see that even in what we might consider straight political journalism at major publications more now than we did.
That beat exists now. It didn't then.
It certainly did not. It existed. Katha Pollitt was writing at the Nation, and she had written through [a feminist lens]. Ariel Levy, who was then writing at New York Magazine and is now at the New Yorker, was beginning to write pieces specifically from a feminist perspective. Mostly that didn't exist.
When I went to Salon to do this squishy category that was going to be about sex and, I don't know, kids and school, women's stuff, I came to it with a personal feminist perspective and interest in gender politics. My editors there shared that interest, but there'd just been no market for it for a long time. We were coming out of real backlash years in the United States where there was a tremendous anti-feminist backlash, and that had gone very much out of fashion.
I began to write some of my stories at Salon from a feminist perspective. That was really at that period that was like, let's look at Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and Whitney Houston. It was very pop culture oriented. I was really hired to do cultural criticism or cultural reporting to the degree that it was reported.
Which is still a thing.
It is still a thing. Insofar as I wrote about presidential politics, I was writing about the wives and daughters, Teresa Heinz Kerry in the 2004 election, the Kerry daughters, the Bush daughters. In about 2006, my editor came to me and said, "You're going to need to write a piece about Hillary Clinton. It looks like she's going to run for president." Now, after a decade of Hillary Clinton running for president, we're like, of course she's running for president. She always runs for president. At the time, it was like, "Really?" I was not a fan of Hillary Clinton. I was a critic of Hillary Clinton. My politics, I felt, were very much to the left of hers.
She was a senator then.
She was a senator from New York. It was 2006. It was ramping up. There was pressure on her to run. There had been pressure on her to run in 2004, and she hadn't done it. In retrospect, she probably should have. In 2006, my editor said, "You're going to have to write a piece about this." I was very critical. Many of the feminists I was reporting on, because I was also looking at the abortion politics, what remained of an old-style feminist movement, and so I started to write about Hillary Clinton at that point. Pretty critically because there were a lot of feminists who were very critical of her. It was not the, "Oh, we're going to have a woman running for president."
Because she wasn't liberal/left/feminist enough, and maybe she was, but at least publicly she didn't present that.
Well, she'd done a lot of contorting in the Senate.
This is the very long and complicated history of Hillary Clinton when she was First Lady and when she had come into the White House ...
Right, she would tack back and forth.
She was perceived as super left wing, feminazi radical, which of course was never accurate to begin with. That was a mischaracterization. There are all kinds of ways in which — from doing her hair to supporting some of her husband's, to my mind, worst policies — that she tried to fix that version of herself.
As a senator from New York, one of the things that she did, she did a lot to play well within the Senate. She really apprenticed herself to a lot of the old, senior guys there and made them like her on both the right and the left. She made a lot of compromises, got behind stuff around flag burning and violent video games that were like, what? She voted, of course, to go to war in Iraq, as did many Democrats. She never apologized. It took her a very long time to say, "I made a mistake and regret that."
There was a lot that those on the left, really, didn't like about Hillary Clinton going into a potential run in 2008. I started writing about that in 2006. I wrote a very long piece about many feminist questions about Hillary Clinton.
You were critical of her. Did you come to her? Over time, did you go, "I need to think this through"? Did she send people to you? Were there emissaries?
Oh no, no.
Oh no, no, no, no. Until 15 months ago ...
You had to come around to being appreciative of her at some point.
Coming around to being appreciative of her, I actually did in the midst of the 2008 race. It was in part because I found myself chronicling this incredible antipathy to her. I'd been a teenager when she was First Lady. I knew academically and I'd observed slightly how much hate had been directed at her from the right, especially in the 1990s, and then I'd been part of the criticism leveled at her from the left.
In 2008, I went in, and I'm an opinion writer. I get to be an opinion writer and a reporter, so I get to talk about this stuff. I've written about it extensively. I was a John Edwards supporter. His politics matched mine. I'm very proud. I obviously made the correct decision, Edwards '08. When he dropped out, I wrote, and I was writing a lot about this. I was trying to get in touch with her campaign, but they didn't want to talk to me. I was a reporter and writer at Salon. They didn't care. I was like 12. They didn't know who I was.
Move along, yeah.
I didn't write for the New York Times. Nobody ever returned my calls from the Clinton campaign in '08. The Clinton campaign in '08 was a disaster.
How do you end up on her radar? How do you end up with enough access so that you were on the trail?
Well, I wrote a book. I wrote a book about the 2008 campaign and about my process of ...
Plug your book. That book's called?
That book is called "Big Girls Don't Cry."
Good, because there's two.
There are two, yeah. That was a 2010 book about the 2008 election.
That's Hillary. It's also Palin.
It's Palin, and it's Michelle Obama. It's about the intersections of gender, race, class, and how those all played into how America received these three historic women, all of whom were playing unprecedented roles. In it, it's not about me, but I do chronicle the evolution of my reaction to all of them.
Certainly people on her team knew about that book, and they also knew at a certain point about the writing that I was doing, which was very much from outside. I was not a political reporter in 2008. I was writing opinion journalism, and to the degree that I was reporting, I was reporting from the margins on how the media was behaving in reaction to these historic candidates, how supporters were behaving, how they were treating each other, the ways that gendered, racialized, racist, classist language was being deployed between supporters of opponents. They knew about that. I'd written the book, and I'd continued to write about her ramping into what seemed increasingly likely to be her next run in 2016. Then I really had to knock on the door of the campaign every day.
That's starting when?
I mean, 2015, the day she ...
How do you think you got that because again, she ... Is despised the press the wrong word?
No, I think that's the right word.
Despised the press. She has a lot of reason to be wary of the press, not naturally charismatic with the press. Again, you guys will go and read this story if you haven't read it, but you are with her on the trail. You've got several intimate moments with her. This was a year ago and again now. How do you get that entree? How do you negotiate for it? Why is it you instead of, I don't know, Amy Chozick at the Times, whose job it is to write about her every day and I think has a relationship with that family as well?
Well, I can only venture a guess on this based on what I sense happened within the campaign. Because of my writing in 2008, which was pretty widely read by people who cared about Hillary Clinton, who cared about politics, I'd like to think it's pretty nuanced and smart about the various complicated dynamics and a lot of the history in play. One of the things I'm very interested in my writing is making sure we put things in historic context.
Right. It doesn't just happen.
Right. I think that's very hard to do for a lot of reporters, writing with short spaces and for a quick, contemporary audience. I have a luxury that a lot of writers don't get to do. I also get to have my voice in there a lot more than straight reporters like Amy Chozick gets to do. I have a very lucky job where I get to write at length and with a lot of detail and with nuance and I get to say what I think at the same time that I get to report. That means that I get to write a different kind of thing.
I think that some of the young people who worked on her campaign, maybe some of the older ones but I really only knew the junior people, had liked and thought that I was smart about the history of Hillary Clinton and way she fit into the story of the United States, and it's progress and regress when it comes to gender and race and progressivism in general. I think there were people within the campaign who were advocating that she talk to me. That's certainly part of what I was hearing is that there were people, not her tight higher-ups who I still to this day don't know though I've now met some of them more, but that a lot of the more junior people were saying, "I think you should talk to Rebecca Traister." This is what I'm guessing.
It bubbles up.
It bubbles up, and it took a long time.
At some point, you still got to get through the top gatekeepers.
I was asking in 2015. I was saying, "Please let me spend time with her." I was making very direct arguments about ...
You're hearing people from the lower rungs of the campaign saying, "We're making the pitch for you."
I don't want to undersell them as super lower.
No, but it's not Huma, right?
It's not Bill, right?
People below them in the org chart are pitching on your behalf.
Are you mailing notes?
I am calling them every day.
You call them.
I mean, probably not literally every day, but I am calling them multiple times a week saying, "How about now? How about now? How about now? Is now a good time to talk to her?"
What tips the scale?
I don't know.
How do you get in?
Well, this is people saying it was toward the end of the primary that they finally said, "Okay, we're going to do this."
Do you meet with her before you start doing reporting or you just show up one day and you're trailing her?
I show up one day as part of the press pool, which has very little access to her. It's kept very distant from her.
Literally roped off.
Yeah. When I was there, there wasn't a literal rope, but there was a literal bus that was separate from her literal bus.
There was a rope line at one point of the campaign, yeah, and the different bus. She's not pretending to be glad-handing with the press.
No, no. There was a period where I did that, where I was with the traveling press. Then there were a couple days, this is all from 2016, so it's the end of her primary against Bernie Sanders. Then there were a couple of days that I had a different kind of access where it wasn't sitting down for lengthy interviews, but it was getting to be near her as she walked in. I got to be next to her as she walked into events, which was incredibly ...
Have you been approved at this point or you're still earning your ...
Yes. Oh no, at this point, there had been a decision made that, okay, Rebecca Traister's going to do this piece. She's got to get her access.
You know that this is ... you are getting something extraordinary that no one else has yet.
I'm trying to think. It's not that nobody else ... Ruby Cramer had written a terrific piece at that point for BuzzFeed where she'd obviously had access to Hillary Clinton. Lots of the other people had had some access for direct interviews. I know that I'm writing a different kind of piece than has been written. I guess to that degree, and I did know I was getting something that I was pretty pleased to be getting.
I'm just getting deep in the sausage making because people don't normally get to see this stuff. It's interesting to me so hopefully to listeners. When you go to them and you say, "I want to do this. This is my proposal. I would like this kind of access," are you saying, "And by the way, I'm either going to promise not to write this sort of thing"?
No, I made no promises.
You're not dumb enough. Sorry, that's the wrong phrasing.
I might be dumb enough, but no, on some things.
You're not going to say, "I will not write this thing."
You also, there's another way of saying, "I'm interested in this kind of ..."
Oh yeah.
Because what they want to know is, is this going to be a hit piece?
Oh sure. No, I was not telling them, "This is going to be a hit piece."
Without saying, "I'm not going to stab you in the back."
No, I can tell you exactly the pitch that I made. I'm not shy about that.
How do you give them reassurance that in addition to seeing your work that they can't guarantee that they're going to get the kind of piece they want, but they also have some comfort level with you?
Well, I think the comfort level in part is based on the work.
You've seen what I do. This is what I do.
"You've seen what I do." I had written at that point literally a book about Hillary Clinton. Also, I can't imagine but 24, 30, 2,000-word or more pieces about her. There is no secret about my evolving feelings about Hillary Clinton, about my criticisms of Hillary Clinton. They were always very aware, because I had historically criticized her from the left because even in my contemporary writing about her going into 2016, I had expressed some ambivalence about her. I'd written a piece for Elle that was about my ambivalence.
A lengthy paper trail.
Lengthy paper trail.
Everything you've thought about her is on paper.
Also, a piece for the New Republic, by the way, urging both Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand to run against her. I have been both open about what became my support for her in '08, and about my ambivalence about her going into 2016. There's no secrets. That was one of the things I said, like "Look, you're not getting any surprises from me. I have written oceans on Hillary Clinton."
I also made very clear that the piece I wanted to write was putting her in the context of American history. There was no promise about it's going to be good or it's going to be bad ever, of course. What I did say is, "Look, I think this is a crucial historic moment." I thought there would be more coverage in the press that made careful note of that, that tried to position this, this first woman nominated by a major party who's going to run in the general election. The first woman in a 51 percent female nation that purports to be a representative democracy in 230 years. I thought there was going to be more historicizing this moment, and there hadn't been at that point.
"I'm going to give this the treatment it deserves."
What I'm going to do is try to put her in the story of America.
That wins them over in the pitch.
That was what they were signing on for. There was no further, and then I was like, "I've got to see what she gives me before I can ..."
Right. Then you progressed from the bus to be near her.
The bus to be near her, which was actually I at first rolled my eyes when they were like, "Oh then you'll have a few days where you're backstage." I was like, "Great."
That's great stuff, right?
In fact, that was the most elucidating. That was the best stuff. I was so naïve to not understand that that was the best kind of access.
Spell out why that's the best access.
Because what I saw was the thing that you never see when you're in the crowd, and that because of the distance that the press was often kept, that the press didn't get to see unless they were backstage with her, which was her doing the business of retail politics. It was shocking to me. I had no idea. I accepted because she's not the easiest or most elegant or most charismatic speaker. We know all about it, and I've written about the stuff about how she speaks, especially compared to Barack Obama, compared to Bill Clinton. Watching her go through the halls, greeting people, shaking hands, remembering names, talking to kids, hugging babies, so smooth.
You get to see her doing the work that isn't captured on cameras.
Everyone says she's great in the room. It's also, I imagine, you get to see her doing her actual work and interactions with her aides.
Yes, I get to see her interact with her staff.
Where she knows she's being observed, but it's also different than you sitting across a table from her with a microphone or a recording device where she knows, "All right, now this is an interview. I'm going to switch into interview mode."
It's that near/middle distance that's a sweet spot for that stuff.
Yes, and it was extremely naïve of me to have ever doubted that that was the best kind of access. That was the best. I had several days of that.
Eventually you were granted time on the couch.
Eventually ... It was always, "You're going to get the interview." The interview that we had in 2016 was at one of these events where I'd been having a day where I was backstage with her. Then it was like, "We're going to do it at some point today." I knew it was going to be that day. I had my printed piece of paper. I was terrified, all of it. Then they said, "We're going to do it after the speech." We wound up, we were in a school gym in Bridgeport, Connecticut, so they said, "We're going to go into the locker room." We sat in the locker room where there was a weird couch.
Yeah, you said, "It smelled bad."
It did smell terrible.
I was trying to imagine what it smelled like.
I still remember it. It was like, woof. That interview was 40 minutes.
That leads to great story No. 1. You've done other great stuff in between that. Great story No. 2 is post-election. Same approach, or she's seen the piece, she knows ...
Totally different. Totally different. Well, I should also say that I was pushing to do another piece. I didn't want that one story in 2016 to be my only story with access to Hillary Clinton. I was desperate to do another big piece on her with access and with an interview in the weeks leading up to the election, and I was pressing for it. I was not succeeding. It's interesting because when people have criticized my approach, and this happens quite a bit on social media, and there's this assumption that because I have written positively about her that I'm like working for the campaign or whatever.
I was like, oh man, if you knew, if you knew the amount of daily agita about just let me have her for five minutes. Let me have her. No, I couldn't get her again. The weekend before the election, I was writing a very big piece because I thought it was a possibility. I was never one of those people who thought she was definitely going to win, never. I certainly thought that there was a possibility that on a Tuesday we were going to be electing the first woman president. This was my job.
This was my job.
You were one of the big voices that said, "It'd be irresponsible not to have written that piece, what it all means."
I was working on that piece. Look, to say that I wasn't sure she was going to win, all signs were pointing toward the fact that she was going to.
Though I wasn't sure about it and I was terrified, I also felt more than a chance. There was going to be a good possibility that I was going to have to write a cover story, that I wanted to write a cover story about how we've just elected the first woman president.
I'd been doing a lot of reporting on a very long feature for weeks leading up to that, to the election. I'd traveled with the press again in Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania the weekend before the election. I was at the rally the night before. I'd been with the bus. I actually did my only moment that has ever approached any kind of gonzo, I'm just going for this journalism was getting off the bus the Sunday before the election. I was traveling with the press. I was desperate to interview her and wasn't getting anywhere with the campaign. I had to go home, and I got off the press bus in Philadelphia, and then I noticed that a bunch of vans were leaving separately. I just got into one. I knew it was somebody in the campaign, and I just got into one. It was Dan Schwerin who was her speech writer and Jen Palmieri. I'd never dealt with Jen Palmieri actually, and she was the top communication.
You force your way onto their van.
I got on their van. Nick Merrill, her press person, looked and was like, "Rebecca Traister's in your van." I was stranded in a parking lot with a bag. What were they going to do? I tried to talk them into letting me talk to her.
Still nothing.
"Let me talk to her." No. I got a vague, not promise, but suggestion that maybe on Wednesday because I was writing for New York Magazine, which would close on Friday, that maybe the day after election day I could talk to her for a few minutes. I was hopeful that was going to happen. That did not happen.
Right. That does not happen.
Does not happen.
At what point do you go to her and that team and say, "I want the first significant story post-election," and then it's months afterwards?
I should be really clear that I didn't say I want the first.
No, but I want the story.
Of course, I did want the first.
That's never how I approached it. Because I had written so much about her, I was in touch at that point after the election with a lot of people who I hadn't been in regular touch with. There were some people on her campaign who reached out to me to talk. A lot of people who were themselves, I think, shocked by her loss and also still processing some of the stuff that they felt they had learned during the campaign, working for her, a lot of it about gender, a lot of it about other stuff, a lot of it about sexism, what they perceived to be the double standards that they'd been working with and then culminating with this loss — which is not to say that these were people were saying, "It was just because of sexism."
I'm not being that reductive, and neither were they. They wanted to talk to somebody who'd done some extensive writing on this. I actually was in touch with a couple of people who said, "I just want to talk to you about this stuff and like what just happened and what I'm thinking." Of course, I spoke with some of them. During those conversations, a lot of them actually had questions for me about the press, which was, "Why hasn't anybody written in depth about the gender dynamics of this since the loss?" It's not that nobody had. Rebecca Solnit wrote a terrific piece. There were people who'd been writing about sexism, but not this very long treatment of how gender worked. It was sexism. Again, I really want to avoid this reductive, mono-causal explanation.
Also in part, right, because one of the reasons they weren't writing about it was because the narrative immediately switched to it's this poor, overlooked, white, working class. We have to go to Appalachia. You could debate whether or not that actually is what tipped the election or it's the Obama voters in Michigan who tipped it over.
Gender went out the door as something people wanted to talk about.
Nobody wanted to talk about gender.
They may not have wanted to talk about it to begin with but certainly afterwards.
Right. This is my view on this, and in this case, I'm only representing my view, not the view of any of these people I was talking to at the time, is that nobody in America wants to talk about sexism or racism as a contemporary thing. We're only comfortable talking about them when we can safely put them in our past. We could talk about race around Obama because he won, and then we could tell a happy story about race moving forward. There was an aversion during Hillary's candidacy to talking about sexism, and I think that aversion came from both the right and the left because nobody wanted to make it simple. There's a perception that if you talk about ...
The campaign right?
Oh sure.
You talk about this as well, right ...
Well the campaign was mixed on this. The campaign was very mixed on this.
Because she specifically didn't run as the woman.
Right. In '08, it was like Mark Penn told her, "Nobody wants a first mama, but they would take a first papa who's a woman." It was so confused, like gender stuff in '08. In 2016, they were much more willing to and eager to run Hillary as the first woman and as a historic figure, but they were also anxious because that campaign talked to women very early on, and this was women, who said, "Don't emphasize the historic nature of her gender and the fact that she'd be the first woman for two reasons. One, I think men are going to be repelled by that, and two, I don't want them to see me as this totally feminized, as my affiliation for her as feminized."
It's very interesting. That is something to really pick apart. That is not as simple as when people have these conversations about, was it sexism or was is because she was a woman? We don't even get to something like that where you really have to pick off the layers of ... these are women saying, "I don't think you should do that strategically because men are not going to like it, and they're going to see me differently." That an investment in electing a woman president, a woman with whom you agree ideologically and politically or on policy issues, I don't want to have feminine stink on me.
As you say, we're several layers down, right?
At the top, we're back to, "She's running against Donald Trump."
We'll get to this eventually, but there's still a discussion of what kind of candidate she was, etc. It's not unnatural for the media to be almost entirely focused on Trump because we've never seen anything like this.
Certainly not a successful version of it.
Right. Well, my attitude about Trump was always that she didn't win him in a lottery. It's not an accident that the Republican candidate to run after two terms of Barack Obama ...
Is a pussy grabber.
Against Hillary Clinton is a man who ran a campaign rooted in part on open calls to racism, misogyny, xenophobia, right. Donald Trump is not some quirk of nature. People treat him that way still. They say, "Oh, she lost to Donald Trump. I mean like anybody could've beaten Donald Trump," without acknowledging that America created Donald Trump because he is the specter of the reaction, not just to Hillary Clinton, but to Barack Obama. A lot of that stuff, Donald Trump was summoned to fight Hillary Clinton, and he did effectively because that's a big part of what America wants.
Rebecca, I said we were going to go half and hour. We're going to go way longer than that.
It's okay. I'm all right.
We should stop right now for a brief word from our sponsor. We'll be right back.
We're back here with Rebecca Traister. We were deep into the history of the 2016 election. By the way, I think it's relevant to be talking about this now. First of all, we should talk about it for a long time because it's historic. Also, because I don't think people have gotten their heads around what happened in the fall of last year.
This is a media podcast. We should talk a bit about how the media has covered that election, how they're covering it now, how they're covering Hillary Clinton now is still relevant. We were talking about how you got into the second piece you wrote for New York Magazine that came out recently, which you should read.
The second piece stemmed from these conversations I was having with people around the campaign. Let me tell you, personally at about 8:45 on November 8th at the Javits Center, I knew that I would need to write a post-election profile, hopefully with a lot of access to Hillary Clinton. Whether or not it wound up getting to be the first, I know that was my job here in 2016 would not be done until that piece or one like it was done. I knew that that's something I wanted. This was not a case where on November 9th I called the campaign. On November 9th, I was scrambling to rewrite the piece that I wound up writing about the election. I was like many ...
In shock.
People in horror for a long time. There are stretches of the fall that I don't really remember clearly. It was not a case of being on the phone this time like every day through December and January. It was in the new year that I started to talk to people. We started to talk about how there hadn't been coverage of gender and the role that it played, why there hadn't been in-depth coverage of this. In those conversations, I said, "Obviously this is a piece that I want to write." Now, I was a person in this case who was saying something that reporters don't usually say, which is, "I don't want to write it now." I was saying that to the people who ...
You're saying this to Team Hillary?
Yeah. Again, this is not like me on the phone with Jen Palmieri. I was not in fact on the phone with Jen Palmieri at any point, ever. This is me talking to some people, some of whom had come to me, some of whom I'd bumped into and who were saying to me, "I don't understand why there hasn't been this coverage." I was agreeing, and we were talking about it. I was giving my perspective as somebody who has written about also even Hillary Clinton in loss before, that I thought that there are periods where these things are still so fresh when you want to go back and look at some of the dynamics involved, where it's so fresh that you can't see it clearly. My guess in, I don't know, January or February was that it wouldn't be until at least the spring.
You say to them, "Give me some time. Let me come to her in this frame."
Yeah, although in this case, it's not even that mercenary.
What I was saying is, "I'm going to write this piece, and I would obviously like to talk to her about it."
It needs to marinate.
Not even marinate. I said, "I have a file open," and this is true. I had a file open on my desk. That was true since November where I was putting my thoughts about gender. Again, this was not based on, oh, I'm going to get a long interview or lots of access to Hillary Clinton. It was, I am going to need to write a piece down the road, and I want to remember what I was thinking at these various junctures. I just kept a Word document open on my computer for all those months where I would put paragraphs or thoughts or references or links to stories or whatever. That was open, and I told people who I knew were vaguely in her orbit. Of course, there was no formal campaign structure at that point, so a lot of these people didn't necessarily have any contact with her anymore but who I knew.
I said, "I am planning to write this piece. I will write this piece. I probably am not going to do it until the spring. I have to wait and see when the moment seems to be the right moment when people can begin to hear it." I knew that from my experience in 2008. At the end of the primary when she finally dropped out after having stayed in through the entire primary, there was so much acrimony. We don't even remember it. In some ways, it was so much more bitter than even the Hillary/Bernie stuff, although that has turned out to be much more long lasting. The Hillary/Obama stuff was acrimonious and so torn and so divided. At the time, I remember somebody said to me, "Are you going to write a book about her candidacy?" This was in the spring of 2008, and I said, "No, nobody's ever going to want to hear the name Hillary Clinton again."
She was so vilified. Anybody who'd supported her was pretty vilified. About six months later, when McCain had picked Palin and tempers had cooled, suddenly people were able to say, "Wait, we love Obama, and we're excited he's the nominee, but a lot of the intensity with which we hated Hillary seems weird now." There was this perspective that then people were like, oh, maybe we can talk about this now. That's when I decided to write a book, and by the time it was published in 2010, people were very weirdly suddenly very eager, again, to look backwards and say, "Oh, what we did there, that was fucked up, right? Not that we picked Obama. That's terrific."
That informs your idea that this has to sit.
I thought this time, six months, maybe we'll be ready to talk about it. Then at some point I began making more formal requests. I guess March, I think March was when I said, "Okay, are we going to do this? I really want to be able to talk to her for this. I'm writing this piece. I'm going to write it." Again, there were no specifics about timing. It was like, "I'm going to write it in the next couple months. Can we talk about me getting some access to her?" At some point, I got a, "Yes, she would like to talk to you for this piece."
Did I imagine that you talked to her in her bathrobe at some point? Is she walking around ...
In her bathrobe?
No, I never talked to her in her bathrobe.
There is story ...
She is in repose. Her guard is down. She's wearing less makeup.
Oh, well that was the very end of the process. Again, what I got, as she began to travel and give speeches. She emerged. She gave a couple speeches right after the election with no makeup and everything. It was tremendous, the Marian Wright Edelman award and everything. Then, she'd been a little bit underground.
The walking in the woods.
In the woods. Starting in March, she began to do some traveling to give bigger addresses. There was one at Georgetown, the Institute on Peace at Georgetown, Melanne Verveer's institute. There was a Texas speech that she gave. There was a Girls Inc. speech in New York City, a Planned Parenthood, a Ms. Foundation. At first, it was that access, the backstage. There was no traveling press with her at that point.
It was getting to be with her at these events, which was again, tremendous access. That was over the period of, I think, it started in March, and it was through April and through May. Through all of this, I kept saying, "And then we're going to need to do a real interview. We're going to need to do a real interview, yes, yes, yes," but that didn't happen until 10 days before the piece ran.
You have that piece. It's a great piece. Again, go read it. I gave it to Walt and Kara. I said, "You guys are going to interview Hillary in a couple weeks or days. You should read it." They did. I've been dying to ask you about this ever since the interview because you are the most informed Hillary person I know. Walt and Kara and Hillary do this, I'm biased but I'm also correct, I think it's a really good interview.
It was good.
At the beginning of the interview, Walt says, "We're going to talk about a lot of stuff. I want you to tell me one thing you think you did wrong during the campaign." I haven't talked to Walt precisely about this, but I can't imagine that she hadn't heard that this was going to come up, that they hadn't prepped for some reason. She refuses to acknowledge that she's done anything wrong. Then because it's the first question and she hasn't really answered it, they have to go around a couple more time, two or three times. I can't even remember how she gets out of it. It seems like the kind of thing that if you are a professional politician or even just someone who gets interviewed professionally, you would have some sort of response ready, either a real answer or a joke answer about cheese curds in Racine or something. Why do you think that she's so insistent on not admitting fault?
Well, I think a couple things. First of all, some of these are just guesses and armchair psychology about a person who I've done a lot of writing ...
Informed guesses, yeah.
Yeah, I've really thought about her for 10 years. I think the first, most practical, and fact-based reason for this is she's writing this book. I think that the fact that she's given lengthy interviews to Kara and Walt, to me, I think she's probably — this is a guess, I don't know what's in the book — is waiting to do some of that in the book and have that be the part of the break of the book, right. That's one guess.
There's some good stuff, but you're not going to get it yet.
You're not going to get this. The second guess is a pretty well-informed guess. What you just said is like, okay, you're a professional politician. This is one of the first times in 25 years that Hillary Clinton has not had to be a professional politician. There is a viral video that went around before the election of 25 years of Hillary being asked the same question, which was, "Can you talk about the fact that you're hated? Why do you think people hate you so much?" Do you remember that video?
No, but I can imagine it.
I don't remember who produced it. It was going from Katie Couric on the Today Show. It was going from Arkansas. There was some footage from the '80s in Arkansas of somebody being like, "The people of Arkansas are just wondering, what do you think is wrong with you?" When I wrote my piece, I actually went back and looked up the number of times that the question, not just oh, we obsess about Hillary, but the question of whether or not Hillary Clinton has apologized has been its own meta news story.
Not just did she apologize, but how did she apologize, right? The most recent was over the server, and there was a piece in the New York Times that was getting to sorry. It was a ticktock of how we got Hillary Clinton to apologize for the server.
By the way, that was her first response when asked was, "Well, I didn't realize how unfairly I'd be treated over the server," not "I screwed up with the server." When asked, "What did you wrong?" It was, "I was treated badly."
Right. Looking back, and I'm trying to remember now, when I got them counted, there were 10 individual instances. The big ones, server, Iraq war vote, which I've already mentioned in this interview that she didn't apologize for the Iraq war vote, Tammy Wynette from when she said something bad about Tammy Wynette. When she ran for the Senate in 2000, on the trail, they were at a diner and one of her aides didn't tip a waitress. There was a story about how it took two days for Hillary to apologize for that. There was a thing after health care in the '90s failed when she said to her staff, "I'm really sorry that this didn't work," and there was a piece criticizing her for weakness for saying, "I'm sorry." She should have apologized, and women should apologize.
This is not a defense. Just putting it in context, the degree to which Hillary Clinton's willingness, her willingness to say, "I fucked up. I'm sorry," and to self-flagellate has been an object of media fetishization for a quarter century. There's some degree to which I am guessing: First of all, I don't think she's great at it. You're right. She is acutely aware of the fact that this has been a fetish, and she's also acutely aware of the fact that she has been ill treated by the press for decades, which is rooted in truth; whether or not you think she should be so defensive and aware of it is another question. I think this is a point where she's like, "I don't have to do this anymore."
Right. That was Kara's theory is like, "I don't want to grovel. I'm not going to give you guys the satisfaction of watching me apologize."
Right. That is my best guess. I think in her view, it has been 25 years of people saying, "Tell us again why you're bad. Tell us again why you're bad. Tell us why people didn't like it. People just didn't like you enough." One of the most amazing descriptions of her, was it after the Recode interview? No, it was before because it was in my story. I hope I don't get this wrong, I think it was David Gregory who, after she'd given the Christiane Amanpour interview where she had said, "Look, I take responsibility. I was the candidate."
"Comey hurt me."
"I'm not going to detail," and then she said, "But I would've won except for the Comey hearing." Then she also said, I think she said, "I'm saving it for my book."
"I'm not going to slag my staff."
"I'm not going to run through the individual, specific reasons why I was bad."
"I will never say anything other than positive things about my campaign," she told you.
That's for me, yeah. After that — this was while I was reporting the story — there was just a heap of criticism that came her way.
"She doesn't take responsibility."
We were worried in the wake of that, that for the Code interview that she would clam up because she'd been so pounded after that interview.
Well, she did. We can talk about this. I think that she did clam up a little bit because it was so brutal. One of the best locutions, and I don't know if I'll cite it exactly correctly, but I think it was David Gregory whose criticism of her was, "She hasn't taken responsibility for the fact that she was not what America wanted." Right. I think there's a point where you haven't ... Again, I don't mean to defend here. It is frustrating. There is this thing where it's like, could you just say it?
Just deflate the balloon.
It's prophylactic. Why don't you just ...
That's all I'm saying. You don't have to do a full flagellation.
Just make a joke just so ... because they can move.
This is what I was getting to is that the rest of her presentation was very well thought through. She was speaking candidly, but also, she thought a lot about it. She clearly wanted to focus on Russia, very detailed. By not letting them move on from that first question, she detracted from the rest of that interview, I think, and left it started off.
I think it would be smarter for her ...
We all here agree in this room.
To do a little like, here's this, this, this. I also think that it is very hard for any of us to conceive of what it might feel like to have truly been asked for 25 years over and over again and in a million instances, "Tell us everything bad about yourself." Especially if you believe, and she truly does, and this is really important, she's not alone in this, right. She does believe that she would've won if it weren't for the Comey letter. She does believe that we've experienced an attack, an aggressive attack by Russians on our democracy. She does think she won the popular vote by three million. I think again, just trying to imagine those circumstances, which must feel like if you're the candidate and these are the circumstances you're looking at and then what everybody wants to know from you is, "Tell me again, list your failures and please be specific." I think she's just at this point where she's like, "I don't have to do this anymore."
Do you think the next significant female candidate for president will be treated significantly differently than her?
Is that because she was the first or it's because she's Hillary Clinton and there's baggage that's specific to her?
She's Hillary Clinton because she's the first. There's no way to separate. One of the things that everybody always like to say is, "It's not about because she's a woman, it's because she's that woman." She's that woman, and she has the baggage that she has. This includes how she behaved during her husband's administration, the various ways that she was attacked during it and the ways she responded, how she behaved in the Senate. She is an incredible figure, historically speaking. Her life bridges this massive shift in possibility for women and especially white, middle-class women. So much of her life from her marriage, her career, she was often anomalous and the first woman or the second woman in very male worlds.
You cannot live that life, and for Hillary Clinton it was extremely high powered, right. It's the Legal Services Corporation. It's law firms. It's the University of Arkansas. It's in the Senate. It's as a First Lady, the first First Lady who had a career outside of her husband's. All that, you can't live that life and not be shaped by it. Her baggage, and again it doesn't excuse it, is shaped by her firstness. She's done a lot of the work of having been the first woman president without ever having been president.
When the next person steps up ...
Which I assume will be in 2020.
Do you think that the press will actively think through, "All right, we got this part wrong. We did this part wrong in the way we covered or didn't cover gender"? Or do you think a lot of what they did is baked into who they are and how they write about and cover things?
It's yes and no, because the press behaved very differently in 2016 toward Hillary than they did in 2008. In 2008, if you go back and look at the clips, your jaw will hang open. It was people just easily talking about how ... Well, not even the press, John Edwards making a job about her jacket in a debate and then complimenting her on her husband's policies. I look at that now, and I'm like, did that happen? It was NPR producers comparing her to Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction."
They've shaped up.
They were terrible in a way.
Also, Trump did all that for them this time around.
In 2016, it was an entirely different thing. They got cleaned up a lot of that very obvious witch, bitch, ex-wife, carping stuff. It was more subtle. There wasn't an eagerness to address the fact that she was different from other candidates. There wasn't an eagerness to actually dive into the historical obstacles that she was up against. There was a willingness to accept a lot of narratives about her that weren't necessarily false but that were a lot more complicated than the ones that were presented. It was a very different kind of bias. It was there. There was also the impulse — and this is a real debate to be had — to treat Clinton and Trump as given equal challenge, equal criticism. That's the sign of journalistic fairness and objectivity is we're being equally hard on them.
Well, that's a weird proposition when you're talking about Donald Trump, who is a political novice and who is Donald Trump, versus Hillary Clinton, who's been under a press spotlight, which doesn't mean give her a free ride. It does mean do they actually merit the same level of investigation and doubt when it comes to how we evaluate them as presidential candidates? There are those kinds of questions. Now, the next woman who runs, first of all, I hope there will be more than one the next round. I hope we see a primary where we have multiple women running against each other, presumably on both sides. Well, I guess we won't barring some craziness, there'll be just Trump.
That'd be very crazy, yeah.
Well, somebody could primary him, and that wouldn't be stupid, but we'll see. I hope on the Democratic side we see multiple women. That's also what I wanted this time because I think the burden of being only, of being singular, is part of what gets us to a lot of these challenges. If we normalize the idea that women can run for president just like men, including against each other on the same side and with similar politics, which is what happens in primaries, that it's going to ease some of this. We've never had a woman president. It's crazy we don't think about this every day. We've never had a black woman governor. There are things I just want everybody to wake up every morning. Until Kamala Harris, only one black woman in the history of the United States had ever served in the Senate, and now two. These are things that we can't just say, "Oh, it's going to go away."
I wanted to ask you about something, and sorry to interrupt, but it's something I wanted to ask you about the work you do in general. When you point out that we've only had one black woman senator prior to Kamala Harris, I know people — and a lot of them are well meaning — who say, "Why do you have to focus on race and gender? Why do you have to make that a thing? Why can't I just like that person or not like that person?" I would assume that you probably get some of those questions about your work.
Why are you focusing specifically on gender? Why not just write about media or politics? What's your response when you get that question?
Well, there's no way to write about American politics without writing about race and gender.
Well, it's one thing to say it's in there. It's another thing to say I'm going to focus on it, and I'm going to focus this piece or I'm going to focus my life's work on it.
The practical response, speaking personally, is that has been my interest, is the way that gender dynamics — and then you can't do gender dynamics without talking about race dynamics, economic inequality — has shaped American culture, society, politics. The history of the United States is a history of gender and racial inequality, right. To me, it is impossible to say, "Can we just leave these things out?" The country's built on them.
There's two versions of that, right? One version of that question is a well meaning, come on.
Aren't we past that or aren't things better? There's another version, which is cynical, right, which is, "Barack Obama made race relations worse." The people who are saying that, at least at the Fox News level, don't actually believe it.
They just know it's red meat. I do think there's a big swath of the population that isn't craven, that believes some version of that. When they hear that you focus on gender, they're not going to talk you. You get what I'm getting at, right?
I assume that even among the readers of New York magazine, there might be people saying, "Well, why make this the focus?"
Right, and I don't assume that that response is craven or malevolent or in any way ill-intentioned. I do think that this is one of the reasons I do the job I do is because I think the far easier and thus more commonly shared experience of living in the United States and thinking about its politics and its culture and its pop culture is to not do that. Whether it's something that you're so obviously saying, like "I don't see race, or I don't see gender. I just evaluate the person." Right, that's a kind of happy way of dealing with it. Whether you're not even going that far, you're just saying, "Look, why do we have to look at the world that way?" I understand that, and I understand that it does not always come from an ill-intentioned place. Occasionally it does.
The whole reason I do the job I do is because I am dissatisfied with that view of the United States. I think it's actually incorrect. I think there's no way to look at the country and its power structures and its politics without everything about our every day, the jobs, the education, early childhood education, paid leave, minimum wage, our health insurance, our infrastructure. Everything that we live in this country every day is shaped by policy that is influenced by racial and gendered inequality and that has been made historically, nearly exclusively by white men, who are a minority population in this country. There is no way that we can say, "Look, why do we have to talk about this? Why do we have to worry about the representation?"
That is not to say I have never ever made an argument that says, "You should just vote for or support the black woman over the white man regardless of the policies they support." That's a straw man argument that is often made in response to people worrying about identity and in political representation. Look, as I said in 2008, as somebody who was already professionally invested in these things, I supported the white guy over both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton because I thought his policies better addressed the inequities that I'm very interested in addressing. To just talk about it doesn't mean that I am suggesting that the only approach to rectify this is to always support the person who's not the white guy.
I could very easily support a white guy over any number of women and people of color in 2020. I can see that happening, but I do not think there is a way to have an honest political conversation about this country or how we live, the neighborhoods we live in, the schools we send our kids to, without saying, "We have to think about how gender and racial inequality shaped our everyday lives in this country."
You're going to keep on this beat.
No, I was thinking of writing about maybe traffic.
Is there a book coming?
Yeah, there is actually.
I'm assuming it's a Hillary book.
No, you've moved on.
She'll be in it.
She'll be in it. Oh, we talked about this off air. You want to briefly tease what the book is about?
Yeah. It's weird coming off that last rant.
Yeah, it was great. It was good. It's a good segue.
I'm writing about women and anger and politics.
I love it. I love it. I love it.
It's weird. I don't know why. I'm writing a book about women and anger but specifically in terms of politics. It's not going to be all about 2016. It will certainly have reference to it.
It's out when?
Oh, don't ask me that. I'm writing it right now.
I know. I just want to give you anxiety. When it's out, will you come back and talk to us?
I will.
I've been wanting to talk you, as you know, for a long time. I'm glad we made it happen.
Thanks so much for having me.
Thanks for coming.
This article originally appeared on Recode.net.


text:
Food and nostalgia have a very strong relationship. Anything that can invoke feelings of familiarity or can remind us of simpler times perhaps becomes an instant favourite with people and that is especially true for food and drinks. The newly re-opened fine dining restaurant Kwality in Connaught Place, Delhi, is a good example of this powerful connection between nostalgia and food. The restaurant that once prided itself in its pre-Independence roots has now re-opened after a brief hiatus and its new and revamped avatar has been creating quite a buzz among city foodies. The old fashioned charm of the restaurant is what strikes a person as soon as one lays eyes on its frontal facade with dark green canopies and deep red curtains, visible through its dull gold window frames.
The renovated restaurant opened its doors to the public this month and is already quite popular for family lunches and dinners. As soon as you enter Kwality, located in Regal Building in central Delhi, you get a feeling of being transported through time to the bygone colonial era. The interiors have been done up to create a feeling of dining with royalty, with vintage wallpapers, antique chandeliers lining the ceiling, black and white frames covering the walls, and a 'maharajah-style' polo bar. A steady stream of old and new Bollywood tunes softly emanate from the piano lounge, setting a mellow mood for a relaxed yet lavish meal.
Also Read: Comorin, Chef Manish Mehrotra's Latest In Gurgaon Makes A Delicious Debut
The taste and variety of food at Kwality is as impressive as the decor. They have a number of interesting starter options for both vegetarians and non-vegetarians and the Mains are a mix of old and new favourites. Additionally, they have a full scale breakfast menu and a traditional colonial high tea menu. For starters, we decided on the delightfully soft Chicken Gilafi (minced chicken kebabs with a special blend of spices and a coating of bell peppers) and the rich, yet surprisingly light Kashmiri Paneer (grilled cottage cheese pakoras, stuffed with dried fruits and khoya). We paused only for a bite of the crunchy Palak Patta Chaat, which is a street food style dish, made from deep fried spinach leaves and topped with tamarind, coriander chutney and crispy sev.
The Mains left us spoilt for choice and we were faced with a dilemma that perhaps all Kwality diners face - whether to stuff ourselves pre-emptively with their special chola bhaturas or to taste a number of different dishes. We opted for the latter, giving us room to explore more and decided to come back for the famous Kwality Chola Bhaturas, which seemed to selling faster than hot cakes. In vegetarian Mains, we opted for Palak Paneer and Sukhi Daal, while from the non-vegetarian Mains we went for the Chicken Bharta and Taar Gosht. While the Palak Paneer, Sukhi Daal and Chicken Bharta were all satisfactory in taste, the Taar Gosht was especially delicious, with perfectly juicy lamb fillet pieces in thick and warm gravy. We were told that the secret to the dish's warmth were the Rampuri masalas and the lamb had been slow-cooked to bring it to the right level of tenderness.
Also Read: #NewMenuAlert: Sushi, Shrimps & Mimosas: The Sunday Brunch At Whisky Samba Is A Weekend Treat
Chicken Bharta and Taar Gosht with Onion Kulcha at Kwality, Delhi
For people who love Anglo-Indian delicacies, Kwality also has a whole range of them, including Lamb Pot Roast, Mutton Cutlets, Chicken A La Kiev, etc. They also have a fairly lengthy cocktail menu with all the Classics and some signature drinks; while for teetotalers they have a handful of old favourites like shikanji, lassi, jaljeera, faluda, etc., among other drinks. For dessert lovers, Kwality's range is like a brief excursion to the 90s with options like Tutti Fruity, Creme Caramel (Caramel custard) and Cassata ice-cream. These are highly recommended for those who harbour a fondness for these cloyingly sweet and simple indulgences. Kwality Restaurant is the perfect place for a birthday family dinner or to celebrate a special occasion with your loved ones, with a wide range of food options that promise to satisfy everyone's palates.
Where: 7, Regal Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001
Time: Noon to Midnight
Meal for Two: INR 1400 (plus taxes)
Phone: 011-23742310/23742352
About Sakshita KhoslaSakshita loves the finer things in life including food, books and coffee, and is motivated by self-indulgence and her love for words. When not writing, she can be found huddled in the corner of a cosy cafe with a good book, caffeine and her own thoughts for company.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We are pleased to share with you a few highlights from the Zinn Education Project this year. It is thanks to individual donors across the country that this work is possible. Donate today so that we can reach more classrooms in 2020.
100,000+ People's History Teachers
We reached a milestone of 100,000 educators registered to access people's history lessons this year. As our community grows, teachers write to tell us about the impact of using lessons from the Zinn Education Project.
For teachers who want to move their teaching of history away from the dry and rote to the exciting, active, and dynamic, the Zinn Education Project's materials, from essays to activities, are not only imaginative and stimulating, they are essential. — Tyson Rahmeier, middle school social studies teacher, Austin, Texas It is easy for some to lose track of WHY we teach these days and instead focus on what we are teaching. The Zinn Education Project has been so helpful to access thought-provoking resources, simulations, and role plays that reinforce the text while also teaching social justice and citizenship. — Lindsey DiTomasso, high school social studies teacher, Elmhurst, Illinois |
People's History Workshops
We introduced teachers to people's history lessons in workshops across the country, including Jackson, Mississippi, Washington, D.C., Brattleboro, Austin, Portland, Oregon, Seattle, and San Francisco.
The Zinn Education Project teach-in offered me a well-rounded way to present Reconstruction — from its successes to its failures. In fact, I've already used the "Write that I" poem exercise that we did as part of the Poetry of Defiance lesson plan, but modified it for Earth Day. — Corinna Ferro, middle school social studies teacher, Williamsburg, Virginia Already an avid user of A People's Curriculum for the Earth, I was also thrilled to experience several of the exercises with other participants at the workshop. The depth of Bill Bigelow's content knowledge and his years of teaching experience allowed him to answer our questions with meaningful insights and model how to work with students. I have understood the reasons behind using the Climate Change Mixer, the La Vía Campesina summit, and the Write that I poems. But the goals of teaching this way took on a whole new level of relevance; I felt why it matters to approach this type of knowledge in such a student-centered way. — Bethany Hobbs, middle school teacher, Greenfield, Massachusetts These workshops highlighted lessons from our Teach Climate Justice and Teach Reconstruction campaigns. |
Teach Climate Justice Campaign
We launched a Teach Climate Justice campaign to encourage and support climate justice education. We posted more than 20 lessons and recommendations of books for K—12. We also promoted professional development workshops and produced a sample climate justice lesson booklet. One feature of the campaign is an invitation to teachers to Pledge to Teach Climate Justice, where they explain why they are taking the pledge. |
Teach Reconstruction
In 2019, we accepted more than 200 entries to our student project, Make Reconstruction History Visible, from students in Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, and Virginia. The Reconstruction lessons became the most frequently downloaded — 2,500 teachers accessing the Reconstructing the South role play and more than 1,600 using When the Impossible Suddenly Became Possible. In our post-mixer discussion, students spoke up about the tensions between different movements, especially the abolitionist and women's rights movements… This is a discussion we would not have had if we had just looked at the Reconstruction Amendments and the actions of the people at the top! — Lois Hammond, middle school social studies teacher, Massachusetts |
Commemorate the 15th Amendment
We launched a new campaign for 2020, to promote the commemoration of the 15th Amendment during its 150th anniversary. For this campaign, we are offering mini-grants to teachers and schools for commemorations of the 15th Amendment anniversary. A Teach Reconstruction donor made this campaign possible. |
This Day in History
We added more than 180 new This Day in History entries and shared them across Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook throughout 2019. Some of the most shared dates in 2019 were the stories of Red Summer 1919, the Tulsa Massacre, the formation of the Colored Conventions movement, Harriet Tubman's Combahee Ferry Raid, the Woolworth Sit-In, and the El Mozote Massacre in El Salvador. |
In the News
The Zinn Education Project reached a national audience through stories in The New York Times, ENSIA, Bust-Ed Pencils, NBC News, Common Dreams, NPR, and The Nation. Two of our articles were published in Teen Vogue: one on Red Summer 1919 and the other about climate justice education. Rethinking Schools (co-coordinator of the Zinn Ed Project) participated in the international Covering Climate Now media project during the week of the Global Climate Strike in September 2019. |
New Lessons
We posted six new people's history lessons for teachers to access for free on the New Deal, the Great Depression, reparations, redlining, resistance to slavery, and abolitionists. |
And more.
These are just a few of the stories from 2019.
Please donate today so that we can reach more classrooms in 2020.


text:
The Braves lost Jacob Webb to a roster crunch earlier this season, but he's back and on the active roster now:
The #Braves today acquired RHP Jacob Webb from the Arizona Diamondbacks in exchange for cash considerations, and he will be available for tonight's game against Oakland. In a corresponding move, Atlanta placed RHP Collin McHugh on the injured list.
— Atlanta Braves (@Braves) June 7, 2022
Webb didn't appear in a major league game for the Diamondbacks, instead pitching in six games for their Triple-A affiliate, where he had a ghastly 10.13 ERA / 5.79 FIP / 4.04 xFIP line. Webb appeared in parts of the past three seasons for the Braves, where he compiled 0.4 fWAR in 76 2⁄3 career innings, basically garbing himself in the raiment of a generic 26th man-type reliever. Webb also made a few postseason appearances for the Braves, including three in 2020 and one during the Braves' title run in 2021, with some pretty ghastly ERAs and FIPs (but fine xFIPs). I, for one, will enjoy seeing his weirdo changeup again.
Collin McHugh hits the IL with an unspecified injury. Given that the Braves have a full 40-man roster, and placement on the COVID-specific IL forgoes that restriction, it's very possible that this is an unstated COVID-IL placement for McHugh. If that's the case, that's a lot better for the team than an actual sports-related injury, as McHugh's been no stranger to those throughout his career. McHugh missed the entire pandemic-shortened 2020 season due to complications following a non-surgical elbow procedure.
The Braves kick off a two-game set against the Oakland Athletics on Tuesday night at 7:20 pm ET at Truist Park. Jacob Webb might even be in uniform.


text:
The proposed legislation will be discussed and voted upon in the 2017 Parliamentary session. Garneau said the plan will:
- establish the ability to apply reciprocal penalties between railway companies and their customers in their service level agreements,
- better define "adequate and suitable service,"
- improve access and timelines for Canadian Transportation Agency decisions; and
- address the future of the Maximum Revenue Entitlement and extended interswitching
The plan elements appear to be aligned with recommendations of Canadian industry stakeholders along the supply chain, including the Grain Growers of Canada and the Western Grain Elevator Association. Industry consultations began shortly after, during which the House of Commons Transport Committee heard from witnesses beginning in March 2016. The committee held its last meeting on Sept. 29.
According to the report, Canada is a significant producer and exporter of grains, much of which takes place in the land-locked western provinces and must therefore rely on rail infrastructure for delivery to export markets.
Efficient movement of Canada's grain to export markets will be one focus of the modernization effort with legislative changes based in part on the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act. The act was passed as a result of the inadequacies exposed in Canada's rail system handling of the record 2013 crop. Proposed changes may not address concerns of the reliability of Canada's rail system to service grain customers.
The act included the following amendments to the legislation, some of which are anticipated to be made permanent in the future revision of the Canada Transportation Act:
- Authorized the Governor in Council to set grain transport volume requirements, in extraordinary circumstances, at the joint recommendation of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The consequence for failure to comply with these volume requirements may result in penalties of up to C$100,000 per day upon conviction.
- Created regulatory authority to allow the Canadian Transportation Agency to extend the interswitching distances in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba to 160 km, for all commodities, to increase competition among railways and give shippers' access to alternative rail services.
- Create the regulatory authorities to add greater specificity to operational requirements in Service Level Agreements.
- Establish regulatory authorities in the Canada Grain Act to address non-performance by grain companies in their contracts with producers.
Although the act was set to expire in August 2016, the House of Commons voted unanimously on June 8 to extend the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act emergency legislation for one year.


text:
How Dnr Causes an Ethical Dilemma
1720 words
7 pages
Running Head: HOW DNR CAUSES AN ETHICAL DILEMMAHow DNR Causes an Ethical Dilemma
Deann Morgan
HCA 322, Health Care Ethics and Medical Law
Dr. David Cole
January 22, 2010
Abstract This paper will present an argument of how the process of do not resuscitate (DNR) results in an ethical dilemma for workers in the healthcare field. In presenting the argument, this paper will also address the following three course learning objectives: 1) explain the legal rights of individuals as they interact with health care services, 2) analyze the monitoring systems that ensure human rights, legal aspects, and quality …show more content…
A dissenting statement by Justice Brennan, however, a patient should be allowed to die with dignity. (Roberts, 2002, 243-43) This case definitely presents an ethical dilemma the choice was made despite the wishes of the family. In DNR cases, it is important the healthcare workers understand the importance of their decisions and the legality of the written DNR orders in order to avoid liability and best carry out the patient's request in DNR cases. (Michael, 2002, 23) Healthcare workers have the responsibility to know in advance the patient's directives when it comes to DNR as well as identify related documents. (Michael, 2002, 22) Ethical dilemmas involving carrying out the actual DNR rarely occur in other healthcare areas such as nursing, but it mainly occurs with physicians since they are the responsible party for making such decisions and following the DNR orders. However, "once the decision is made, critical care nurses are left with implications of the decision in providing patient and family care." (Prevost, Jensen, & Hodgins, 2000, 259) Yet the use of DNR is justified by two primary rationales: 1) respect for patient autonomy and 2) reduction of futile, costly medical care. (Weiss, 2000, 308) Paramedics are another group of healthcare workers that may face ethical dilemmas when it comes to carrying out DNR


text:
While scientists conducting studies have stressed the need for a better focus on familial well-being and health, stress and anxiety are two deep-rooted factors that we must all work to alleviate from the very beginning. Not only can these conditions be mentally taxing, but they can also lead to a lot of inflammation, further weaken down the immune system, impact the heart health and slow the body down. In the times we are living in, any health condition cannot, and should not be taken lightly. Therefore, stress and anxiety should be managed in a holistic manner. Here are a few ways to do so:
-Practice meditation and engage in breathing exercises.
-Take time out to be physically active and exercise every single day
-Seek help from a support group, and socialize with your close ones (be it virtually or in person)
-Do not be complacent or precarious in your COVID behaviour
-Practice gratitude every single day
-Have a helpful, healing diet that lower down stress levels.


text:
Good afternoon!
I am part of a group on goodreads, and I am trying to catch up on the books they've read 📚.
Here is my list.
If I could read all books on every tbr and for every goal, that would be a lot... haha!
Have a good reading weekend!


text: The vast majority of fund managers under the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) have now survived their first filing of the consolidated AIFMD reporting template – commonly referred to as Annex IV. Fund managers that have yet to file can learn from the experiences of those who just filed in January 2015, for the reporting period that ended on December 31, 2014. In this guest article, Jeanette Turner, Managing Director & General Counsel at Advise Technologies, LLC, shares useful feedback and lessons learned from hedge and other fund managers that filed in January. Next Wednesday, February 18, from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. EST, Turner will expand on the thoughts in this article in a webinar entitled "Lessons Learned from the January Filing." She will be joined in that webinar by Simon Whiteside, a partner at Simmons and Simmons LLP, and Stefanie Kirchheimer, a Director at PwC. The webinar will be moderated by Hedge Fund Law Report. To register for the webinar, click here. For further insight from Turner, see "HFLR-Advise Technologies Panel Explores AIFMD Marketing and Annex IV Reporting Requirements," Hedge Fund Law Report, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Jan. 15, 2015). The Hedge Fund Law Report interviewed Turner in "Key Pain Points in AIFMD Annex IV Reporting and Proven Strategies for Surmounting Them," Hedge Fund Law Report, Vol. 7, No. 44 (Nov. 20, 2014); and she co-authored "A Practical Comparison of Reporting Under AIFMD versus Form PF," Hedge Fund Law Report, Vol. 7, No. 41 (Oct. 30, 2014).


text:
What follows below is an excerpt. Click here to read the entire article.
From the room size computers of the 1940s to the desktop, laptop, palmtop, and wearable computers of the present, human interaction with this powerful and pervasive calculating machine has changed. When in the 1960s computers started to become capable of producing and manipulating images, computer graphics became a prominent research topic among engineers. Likewise, computers started to attract the attention of experimental visual artists all over the world.
Surprisingly, at times the work produced by engineers achieved strong visual and cultural impact. This is exemplified by the Japanese team called Computer Technique Group, from Tokyo. In the late sixties they produced classics such as "Running Cola is Africa," a black-and-white graphic morphing sequence showing the transformation of a runner into a Coca-Cola bottle which then morphed into the map of Africa [1].
Working against the background of Pop, conceptualism, and kinetics in the 1960s, many innovative artists abandoned the tactile appeal of the analog realm and ventured into the unknown domain of computer graphics. Classic examples include the work of the Americans John Whitney [2] and Charles Csuri [3], the Brazilian Waldemar Cordeiro [4], the Hungarian Vera Molnar [5], and the German Manfred Mohr 6]. Many artists working with computers at the time explored algorithms that generated multiple forms of abstract or Constructivist art. Others created figurative images that were charged poetically through specific graphic procedures (e.g.,warping, morphing, zooming). Cordeiro's work is particularly distinct in this context because the artist, living under the worst phase of the Brazilian military dictatorship, produced computer images that were rich in personal, emotional, or subtle political content.
Computer graphics in art continued to flourish in the 1970s and 1980s, as new algorithms were developed and digital images started to acquire color, rich shading, and photographic qualities [7]. Computers were gradually becaming incorporated in interactive art installations, as exemplified by historical exhibitions such as "Software," curated by Jack Burnham in 1970 for the Jewish Museum in New York [8]. Computer graphics were prominent in videos and films in the 1980s, and even television commercials started to feature digital animation regularly. The launch of the Macintosh computer in 1984 and the graphic software industry that followed it made computer imaging accessible to a larger number of artists. Consequently, the creation of still images presented new challenges to a younger generation of artists, who enjoyed unprecedented creative freedom. As the new frontier of computer graphics became a stable industry and an established artistic practice, experimental artists in the 1990s started to push the digital image into new areas of imagination and experience. The works discussed below reveal some of the most fascinating works created today in the areas of virtual reality, interactive performance, avatars, telepresence, and artificial life.
Inside the image
Since the late 1980s the term virtual reality has been used and abused in scholarly journals and popular magazines alike, often taken to mean different things for different purposes. When first developed by Ivan Sutherland in the late 1960s, the technology of virtual reality was intended to enable scientific visualization of three-dimensional data in real time through the use of head-mounted stereoscopic electronic displays. Because the technology has grown less expensive over the last ten years, it has catapulted from research labs into myriad applications, such as education, military training, medicine, and gaming. True to its origins, the concept refers to a visual space that can be seen as such by the viewer and in which this viewer can navigate in three dimensions in real time. If the viewer perceives the space through a stereoscopic device, he or she has the sensation of being immersed in the space. For the viewer to have a seamless experience, the computer must be powerful enough to calculate every subtle change in point of view in real time.
In 1995 the Canadian artist Char Davies, working with designers and programmers, created "Osmose" [9], a virtual-reality immersive artwork that invited viewers to move through synthetic infinite worlds. In this work Davies, who lives in Montreal, presented a unique interface to what she calls the "immersant" (the person immersed in the virtual world). In the form of a vest, this interface provided real-time motion tracking based on breathing and balance. This meant that viewers could inhale to rise and exhale to descend and could move forward or backward in the virtual space by leaning forward or backward in the physical world. Viewers navigated a complex world made of natural forms, such as trees, and synthetic elements, such as three-dimensional Cartesian wireframe grids filled with diaphanous substances.
"The public installation of Osmose," explained Davies, "included large-scale stereoscopic video and audio projection of imagery and interactive sound transmitted in real-time from the point-of-view of the "immersant". This projection enabled an audience, wearing polarizing glasses, to witness each immersive journey as it unfolded. Although immersion took place in a private area, a translucent screen equal in size to the video screen enabled the audience to observe the body gestures of the immersant as a poetic shadow-silhouette."
Her most recent work, entitled "Ephémère" (ephemeral in French), was also created with a team of designers and programmers and premiered in 1998 at the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa. Whereas in "Osmose" the immersant could move through a forested glade populated by static objects, in "Ephémère" every object is in a state of flux. Organized in three levels, this new work also makes use of organic and natural metaphors, except that this time an analogy is suggested between nature and the human body. As in "Osmose," "Ephémère" uses the breathing and balance vest interface to propel the viewer in space, makes creative use of three-dimension sound, and can only be fully experienced with a virtual- reality headset. As viewers try to make the most of the allotted 15-minute time slots, their sense of time might get warped. The digital image becomes a navigational space, and they might get lost exploring new worlds.
1. Reichardt, Jasia. Cybernetic Serendipity: The Computer and the arts ( New York: Praeger, 1968), pp. 75-77.
2. Whitney, John, Digital Harmony: On the Complementarity of Music and Visual Art. Peterborough, NH: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
3. Csuri, Charles. "Computer Graphics and Art," in Tutorial: Computer Graphics, Beatty, J. and Booth, K. (eds), (Silver Spring, MD: IEEE, 1982), pp.558-570. Originally published in 1974 in Proceedings of the IEEE.
4. Cordeiro, Waldemar. Arteônica (São Paulo: Editora das Américas, 1972); Fabris, Annateresa. "Waldemar Cordeiro: Computer Art Pioneer", Leonardo Volume 30, No. 1 (1997), pp. 27-31.
5. Molnar, Vera. "Towards Aesthetic Guidelines for Painting With the Aid of a Computer", in Leonardo, Vol. 8, N. 3 (1975), p. 185; "My Mother's Letters : Simulation by Computer', Leonardo, Vol. 28, N. 3 (1995), pp 167-170.
6. Leavitt, Ruth, Artist and Computer (New York: Harmony, 1976), pp. 92-96.
7. See Franke, Herbert. Computer Graphics, Computer Art (London: Phaidon, 1971) and Annabel Jankel and Rocky Morton, Creative Computer Graphics (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984).
8. Burnham, Judith B. (Coordinator), SOFTWARE - Information Technology: Its New Meaning for Art (New York: Jewish Museum, 1970). See Also" Edward A. Shanken, "The House That Jack Built: Jack Burnham's Concept of "Software" as a Metaphor for Art", in Roy Ascott, ed., Reframing Consciousness: Art and Consciousness in the Post-Biological Era -- Proceedings of the Second International CAiiA Research Conference (Exeter: Intellect, 1999). Forthcoming.
9. See: Davies, Char. "Osmose: Notes on Being in Immersive Virtual Space". Sixth International Symposium on Electronic Arts Conference Proceedings, Montreal: ISEAÕ95, 1995, pp. 51-56; Lunenfeld, Peter . "Char Davies." Art + Text, no. 53 (1996), pp. 82-83; Goldberg, Ken. "Virtual Reality in the Age of Telepresence", Convergence, 4 (1), 1998, 33-37.
10. See Gagnon, Jean . "Dionysus and Reverie: Immersion in Char Davies' Environments." Char Davies: Ephémère, exhibition catalog, (Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, 1998), n/pp; Mirapaul, Mathew. "An Intense Dose of Virtual Reality." The New York Times Online (7/9/1998); Davies, Char. "Ephémère,: Landscape. Earth, Body and Time in Immersive Virtual Space", in Roy Ascott, ed., Reframing Consciousness: Art and Consciousness in the Post-Biological Era -- Proceedings of the Second International CAiiA Research Conference (Exeter: Intellect, 1999). Forthcoming.
This article may include minor changes from the original publication in order to improve legibility and layout consistency within the Immersence Website. † Significant changes from the original text have been indicated in red square brackets.


text:
World of Beer on the Manatee-Sarasota county line will be featuring the beers from Bell's Brewery in Michigan on Feb. 29. As an extra special treat, they will have a keg and a firkin of hophead dreamboat Hopslam.
I've already consumed the six-pack I bought a few weeks ago, and I had a glass of it on draft at Growler's Pub, and I can say this year's Hopslam is as excellent as always. So if you're a Hopslam geek, you might want to head over there and try both versions to see how they compare. I may have had a glass of cask-conditioned Hopslam last year, but my memory's fuzzy on that.
World of Beer says they will also be serving:
• Bell's Amber
• Bell's Cherry Stout
• Bell's Double Cream Stout
• Bell's Java Stout
• Bell's Kalamazoo Stout
• Bell's Oberon
• Bell's Third Coast Old Ale
• Bell's Two Hearted Ale
And they say there's more beer to come. If you're a fan of stouts, the draft list should excite you. Bell's makes a bunch of the style.


text:
Good evening and thanks for stopping by. Sorry for the lack of posts lately but SirPutts and I have been busy over the past few weeks. We're doing a bunch of behind the scenes stuff right now to make the site even better in 2009. We're hoping to roll some of this stuff out in January so stay tuned. Tour Edge has released their latest Exotics driver… the XCG-V.
The new XCG-V driver features three different pieces joined together without the use of welding. The magnesium crown, titanium cup-face and steel sole plate combine to produce low spin rates and penetrating drives. Tour Edge promises more forgiveness and even longer drives with this one. The XCG-V will feature two stock shafts (Graphite Design Tour Ad and Aldila Voodoo 65) and will be available December 1.
You'll see a new Callaway Golf ad over the coming weeks in response to the whole Titleist Pro V1 lawsuit thing. Check out Callaway's response to the Pro V1 ruling .
We had a reader on our Facebook page ask about SirShanksAlot shirts the other day. We used to have some up on Cafepress. People seemed to like them so we've fired up the shop again. The Golf Drill Guru has added some cool new designs to the mix and we'll be putting up more over the next week or so. Swing by and have a look!
That's all for today. Talk to you soon!


text:
Buffalo Law Review
Front Matter
Table of Contents
Buffalo Law Review
1976–1977 Board of Editors
Buffalo Law Review
The Broker's Duty to His Customer under Evolving Federal Fiduciary and Suitability Standards
F. Harris Nichols
Compulsory Licensing of a Trademark
Vincent N. Palladino
Book Review
Law in Modern Society: Toward a Criticism of Social Theory. By Roberto Mangabeira Unger.
Richard D. Schwartz
Recent Developments in Securities Law: Causes of Action under Rule 10b-5
Russell N. Brown, Thomas C. Carey, Louis S. Faber, Robert B. Fleming Jr., Allen J. Klein, Mark J. Moretti, James Piggush, and M. Williams Jr.
Annual Index to Volume 26
Buffalo Law Review
Cumulative Index Volumes 16-30
Buffalo Law Review


text:
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.
To learn more about our privacy policy Click hereAlthough the Customized Apron Sink is a fitting decoration, but in the kitchen all kinds of supplies, the highest frequency of use of Customized Apron Sink. It takes 65% of the time to work with the Customized Apron Sink before and after meals, so its importance to family life is obvious. At present, the Customized Apron Sink on the market has a variety of materials, different materials have different characteristics, Customized Apron Sink is not the same.
A careful look at the stainless steel handmade Customized-Sink, we can find that the appearance of high-quality Customized-Sink flat, soft and gentle visual, easy to stick greasy, easy to clean, wear-resistant. The quality of the sink near the corner of 90 degrees, the larger visual tank, basin volume is also large.
At the same time be able to look at the Customized-Sink of the supporting components: the quality of the first request wall thickness, handling lubrication, the cage does not leaking when closed, touch beads durable and feel warm. Down the water pipe made of environmentally friendly materials made of one-time, with the device easy, odor, heat, anti-aging and other functions, durable.
Stainless steel is an iron alloy, the proportion of steel is 7.87, which added nickel, chromium heavy metals, the proportion of these metals is larger than steel, so the weight of heavy. If it is fake, poor quality stainless steel, such as the weight of steel plate chrome light.
We offer high quality package for each Customized Apron Sink products, 24x7 Hrs for after-sale service, offering the needed support to all of our customers for products and sales.
Products Drawing from our Engineer--products drawing transfer to our Laser Machine--Raw Material surface film- Material high brushing/Satin-Cutting-Bending-Welding-Surface Treatment-Stick Soundproof pads on sink-Painting- hand brushing& Cleaning-- QC--Packing.
Our 304 stainless steel sink are premium 16 and 18 gauge units, the sinks have special paint and sound proof padding. we have finebrushed Surface treatment for each Customized Apron Sink.
Customized-Sink weight Four stainless steel is a ferroalloy, the proportion of steel is 7.87, which added nickel, chromium heavy metals, the proportion of these metals than steel, so the weight of heavy. If it is fake, poor quality stainless steel, such as the weight of steel plate chrome light. Five Customized-Sink process welding and one-piece molding. To be sure, the one-piece stainless steel sink material certainly better than the welding method. One-piece forming technology addresses the problem of seepage due to corrosion of the pot weld, which can not withstand the corrosion of many chemical liquids. One-piece molding process is a particularly important process, high demand on the plate material. What kind of process is a clear indication of the quality of the Customized Apron Sink.


text:
In the ever-expanding realm of corporate liability, it is vital that multijurisdictional companies understand and appreciate the differences between anticorruption regimes in the various countries where they operate. This Insight provides a comparison of the anti-bribery and anticorruption regimes in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, which have adopted slightly differing systems in many areas, including in deferred prosecution agreements and whistleblowing regimes.
If you have any questions or would like more information on the issues discussed in this LawFlash, please contact any of the following Morgan Lewis lawyers:
Chris Warren-Smith
Alison Tanchyk
New York
Kelly A. Moore
Alexandre Bailly
Xavier Haranger
Sarah E. Bouchard
Zane David Memeger
San Francisco
Susan D. Resley


text:
As Gottl continued her editing inside, Gordon Curry drove out of the big, open Lincoln Center parking lot. I was his passenger. We were headed up the Tollway to the far northern suburb of Plano for a meeting at Legacythe first look at the new headquarters for both of us. Curry's title was manager of executive communications, and the business of this trip was a speech. I was in my first year of freelance speechwriting for Penney upper management. Our meeting was to be with Mike Restaino, communications director for Jim Kennedy, former head of the men's merchandising division and now head of the home division. The assignment was a Kennedy presentation to be guided and edited by both Restaino and Currybefore Kennedy then became involved with his own input. [2]
Because of staggered completion schedules for the different buildings in the complex, the home division and some support departments had been among the first to move from Lincoln Center to Legacy. They were not the first to occupy the new edifice, however. Penney's top dozen officers (making up the "management committee") had left the sixth floor of the Aberdeen Building and, along with vans of furniture, accessories, records, and office equipment, made the grand migration to what would become known to some outsiders as the "Golden Crescent."
Curry had a map that had been printed to assist in the transition from North Dallas to Plano. It showed the main routes to Legacy, the gigantic three-story parking garages, and the drive that circled the complex. Instead of driving directly to the garages upon arriving in the corporate park, Curry said, "Let's do a little rubber-necking." He then circled the property. Halfway around, he swung into the special driveway that cut across well-landscaped lawns and passed a large man-made pond with a fountain blowing higher than Old Faithful.
I indicated the building's approaching ceremonial entrance. "Not many corporations have a main entrance fit for occasions of state," I said.
Curry smiled and checked his map. "That's the main rotunda, which has a statue of Mr. Penney. We can say hello to him after the meeting."
From there we circled back around to the garages and parked on the mid level of the south structure, close to the elevator and stairwell. We faced two ways to enter the building: down the stairs or elevator to a long gallery that led into the lower level, or straight ahead across an open walkway (over the gallery). Both ways had views of the terraced gardens that led down to a pool and another fountain blowing almost as high as the one in the fancy front of the complex. Beyond the fountain was a giant patio with tables and chairs fronting an expanse of glass. Again checking his map, Curry said, "Inside the glass is the cafeteria dining room, and there are supposed to be private dining rooms somewhere."
"It's huge," I said.
"Lot of people here, or will be," said Curry. "There will be two cafeteria lines, one at either endnot lines, but clusters, with different kinds of food, or so it says here. Only one open right now."
"This is some layout," I said, looking back at the garages with brick facades and sizable ornamental copper -roofed cupolas at the corners. Then I looked around again at the terraced gardens, the lower-level fountain, and glass-walled cafeteria. As we proceeded inside, neither Curry nor I had known to look above the cafeteria at the most interesting aspect of this elevationsomething we would do with rapt attention within 15 minutes.
[2] This typified Penney's evolved bureaucratic micromanaging process. Interestingly, I later reflected that if a speech assignment was for one of the very highest-ranking executivesGale Duff-Bloom, for example, or the chairman himselfCurry was able to simply dispatch me to direct one-on-one meetings with the speaker. Guess which process usually resulted in the best speeches.


text:
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary Maria Antonia Yulo Loyzaga led the inauguration of the new DENR 6 Monitoring Building on Thursday, January 19, 2023.
"This new Monitoring Building used to be an old, abandoned and dilapidated building left by the Iloilo Harbor Pilots Association," said DENR 6 Regional Executive Director Livino B. Duran during a short program for the building inauguration. The strategic location of the building prompted the management of DENR 6 to utilize it for its own use instead, thereby contributing to the modernization of the office and beautifying the area where it now stands.
The new Monitoring Building will house the Storage and Procurement Bay (for disposal and for acquired supplies and materials), the General Services Section, and PENRO Iloilo's Forest Products and Wildlife Traffic Monitoring Section (to monitor charcoal and wildlife from Guimaras Island) at the ground floor. Meanwhile, the second floor of the building will house permanent records of the Planning and Management Division, the Finance Division, and the Administrative Division. Lastly, the roof deck will be used for monitoring purposes.
"My main concern is for you to optimize the records, and possibly look into the digitization of the records you're going to file here. We all know that records are important. At the end of the day, if they degrade or are damaged, we will lose them forever. We need to digitize and have the records already prepared in a form that can be handed down by this particular office," said Secretary Loyzaga.
"This is a unique spot and a historic boulevard. You have a gem here. I'd like everyone to represent the Department in a dignified and in a professional way as possible. This is the face of the DENR now. Congratulations for this hard work. This is an excellent manifestation of the dedication of DENR," she added.
The new Monitoring Building of DENR 6 is located in Muelle Loney Street, and is overlooking the Iloilo River and Guimaras Strait. A unique spot, indeed./DENR 6
- Details
- Published: 20 January 2023