Saturday College Football Open Thread

Lots and lots of games today. Of particular note, Penn State gets a glimpse of the future under Bill O'Brien, the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame are in Ireland to play Navy. And the destruction of Michigan by Alabama tonight in Texas. The picks (3-0 yesterday (told you it would be better, 4-3 for the year.):

Navy +14 1/2 over Notre Dame, Marshall +26 over WVa, Ohio +7 over Penn State, Northwestern Pick over Syracuse, Ohio State -25 over Miami of Ohio, Western Michigan +10 over Illinois, Tulsa -1 over Iowa State, Southern Mississippi +20 over Nebraska, Colorado -6 over Colo St., Auburn +3 over Clemson, North Texas +44 over LSU and last, but not least, Alabama -14 over Michigan (5 units).

Open Thread.

< A Medical Marijuana Death Sentence | Time for A Gag Order in George Zimmerman Case? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 11:13:28 AM EST
    boy conservatives are ranting about DSW's statement about shiny packages. I said she really could have said nothing. The radical legislation the GOP has sponsored or passed speaks for itself. Crickets once again from conservatives.

    Okay (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 11:34:48 AM EST
    all these initials just aren't working for me. My daughter long ago programmed my head to know DSW stands for Designer Shoe Warehouse. Help!!

    Maybe: (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 12:10:05 PM EST
    Sorry (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 12:26:41 PM EST
    Debbie Wasserman Schultz

    thank you - I was thinking the same thing (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 02:39:29 PM EST
    Just got back from there (struck out)

    You tried to help w/consumer spending. (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 02:42:04 PM EST
    But failed.  

    Not entirely.... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by ruffian on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 02:47:56 PM EST
    Nordstrom Rack is across the street! But even there I did not do my usual damage. Bought one Boss blouse for $39.00 though. Score!

    Ha. I took a course in retail (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by observed on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 03:37:52 PM EST
    therapy a couple days ago, unplanned, when I accompanied a friend to Khan Shatyr (the big tent). The therapy was a success---for the Kazakh economy. Coincidentally I have some new clothes, including a pair of pants which are a weightwatching prod: their largest size (36 in) barely fit my waist.

    Made in ________________? (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 03:47:01 PM EST
    I bought pants, sweater, (none / 0) (#39)
    by observed on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 03:50:27 PM EST
    shirt and a wool blend jacket  at Massimo Dutti, the Spanish store with the Italian name.

    Why do the leaders, (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by fishcamp on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 01:11:44 PM EST
    and I use that term loosely, always show up at disaster scenes, shake hands, look at some shrimp boats, and leave?  They could put some gloves on and help square away some 9th ward type houses.  Jimmy Carter was always out there with gloves and hammer grinning away.  Obama and Romney probably have about 100 people each with them.  They could fix an entire neighborhood.  Load Air Force 1 up with plywood and tools.  Git r done.

    Jimmy Carter (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Zorba on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 01:47:42 PM EST
    did not make the most effective President in a lot of ways (except, as you pointed out, when there was "down and dirty" work to be done) but he made a he!! of an ex-President.  His hands-on work with Habitat for Humanity alone is worthy of respect, not to mention his work on peace-keeping and humanitarian efforts.   I only wish that all of our ex-Presidents who do as well.

    I thought the gratuitous slap at (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 01:56:17 PM EST
    Pres. Carter on the last night of GOP convention was unwarranted.  

    I agree (none / 0) (#22)
    by Zorba on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 02:07:02 PM EST
    But then, there was a whole lot at the GOP convention that was unwarranted.  Not to mention outright lies.

    I do hope the Democratic Convention (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 02:13:48 PM EST
    is entirely truthful!

    Dr. Droll is on a roll. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 09:12:50 AM EST
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 06:22:18 PM EST
    Romney has made it clear that he does not hold Jimmy Carer in high esteem.  Part of his feelings, in my view, relate to the civil rights pressures of the Carter Administration, starting with his inaugural address when he proclaimed that the time of racial discrimination needs to be over.  It was, finally, in 1978 that the Mormon ban on black lay priesthood was suddenly removed due to a revelation from God to do so.  The Mormon expansion in Brazil was a factor, too, but President Carter's pressure seems to have influenced God a lot in 1978.

    And after all, President Carter only ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 08:35:49 PM EST
    ... negotiated a peace treaty between two intractible enemies, Israel and Egypt, which has held in place for the last 33 years. Why, anyone could have done that!

    What exactly (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 06:54:09 PM EST
    was said? I'm sure that was just playing to the base but still it sounds ridiculous but then again this is the GOP we're talking about.

    Maybe Coach Hoke made those (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 08:11:09 AM EST
    2 players stay home so he"ll have a ready explanation for being "destroyed.".

    Apparently one player (none / 0) (#12)
    by brodie on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 12:08:34 PM EST
    got stopped for a DUI while the other is charged with stealing a laptop.

    If so I'd say the coach made the right move.  Kinda gutsy too as it hugely affects Michigan's chances today.  

    Had this happened to two AL players, far more likely they would have played today "pending further investigation" then been suspended as soon as their schedule permitted -- ie whenever the first lame opponent appeared.  Cynical but not unreasonable observation having to do with the far greater pressure top SEC coaches are under to always win as compared with coaches outside of that football crazy region.


    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 12:13:49 PM EST
    and to disagree partially with your statement, "is charged with stealing a laptop" is why Florida sent Cam Newton packing and not just a one game suspension.

    Of course to then justify some of your statement, Cam went to Auburn.


    Stopped for DUI, charged with (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 12:12:03 PM EST
    driving with visual impairment.  No conviction as to either player.  

    No, charged initially with (none / 0) (#17)
    by brodie on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 12:40:07 PM EST
    DUI as he failed a breathalyzer at the scene.  The lesser "visual impairment" charge resulted from a plea deal.

    And coaches/schools have always had the liberty to enforce discipline outside the formal criminal justice system, but since a guilty plea has been entered to the lesser misdemeanor charge, all that's left there is the judge's upcoming decision on sentence.


    Joe Arpaio (none / 0) (#2)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 08:37:21 AM EST
    Only one set of charges were dropped (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 02:45:16 PM EST
    NOT the civil rights violations. It seems like the public corruption charges in question were pretty complicated - too complicated for me to fully grasp from that article anyway. It is not surprising to me that a prosecutor would not find a prosecutable case in there, no matter how bad the stench.

    When you own your losses (none / 0) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 09:47:47 AM EST
    you get to gloat about your victories.
    BTD in a cakewalk yesterday with none of his picks ever in doubt.

    BTD NCAA Season update +$100

    No cakewalk today. (none / 0) (#8)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 11:15:35 AM EST
    He's off to a inauspicious start this morning as Navy is sinking into the Irish Sea.  43 to 10 Notre Dame with about 5 minutes left.

    Does Navy suck this year? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 11:54:16 AM EST
    Or is Notre Dame awesome?  If Navy sucks, and Air Force could suck.....perhaps Army could win.

    I think it will be a long season... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 12:53:27 PM EST
    in Annapolis this year.  Since it's all Broncos all the time around here due to the Manning Effect, I really don't know much about the Zoomies.  Heck, there hasn't even been much coverage of CU or CSU--which made it hard for me to choose one or the other in my college pick'em this week.  

    Navy has a tough road ahead football-wise. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by caseyOR on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 02:29:46 PM EST
    Today ND played without its starting QB, Tommy Rees, who is serving a one game suspension.

    Navy is joining the Big East conference. All through this morning's game the announcers kept talking about what a bad move that is for Navy because Navy just cannot compete.

    I hesitate to judge ND season based in just this game. Still, the Irish did seem more together as a team that I have seen them in years. We'll see how they do against Purdue next week.


    It is so hard to judge how they will shake out (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 03:31:24 PM EST
    in the military games.  The kids going to the military academies don't get the same dedication to practice.  Practice comes after studies and it comes after military exercises too which they all must participate in during their schooling. The only real apples to apples measure I can get is when Army, Navy, and Air Force play each other.

    The kids playing for the academies don't get to shoot for an NFL career much because when they get out of school they owe their country six years of service.  So we seldom get players that have NFL designs.  If we get extremely gifted players they are practically sacrificing the hopes of an NFL career to serve their nation.  And it does happen, just not very often.


    The announcers at this morning's game (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by caseyOR on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 03:36:25 PM EST
    agree with you. They made the point that athletes at the service academies do not get to devote themselves to their sport. There are too many demands for their time and energy that outrank sports.

    That's why they think that Navy should remain an independent instead of joining the Big East.


    I don't recall Navy fielding (none / 0) (#11)
    by brodie on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 11:56:19 AM EST
    a decent team since the era of Roger Staubach, half a century ago, back when the networks were unvailing this fancy new technical thing called Instant Replay.

    Maybe the services should combine their efforts into one very decent Pentagon team -- they'd probably start earning money on the gridiron while fielding a team that's worthy of the men and women who go into actual battle.


    Navy went 10-4 in 2009, and ... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 08:43:01 PM EST
    ... beat Notre Dame and Missouri. The Midshipmen are a very decent mid-major program, as is Air Force. In my estimation, they should remain an independent, or join a mid-major conference like the MAC.

    Severe conservative advice, (none / 0) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 10:33:59 AM EST
    'I'm from Bain, and I am here to help."   On his tour of parts of Louisiana hit by hurricane Isaac, Mitt Romney told a local woman whose house was underwater to go home and call 211.   Curious advice, unless Mittens assumed the homeless woman was a scuba diver, or that when she mentioned that her home was underwater, he thought she was referring to her mortgage status.  

    Silly Keysdan---he meant that (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by observed on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 10:45:00 AM EST
    she should go to her second home (or third or fourth) and call from THERE.

    But, but, (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 10:52:41 AM EST
    she is one of those lazy-entitlement, Hurricane Queens, who summer where they winter.

    And Obama said???? (1.00 / 2) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 09:03:02 PM EST
    What you need is some more hope and change!

    Here's what I want to know (none / 0) (#47)
    by shoephone on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 09:52:12 PM EST
    Is your lying pathological or situational?

    Jim's been talking to Obama's chair again (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 06:20:34 AM EST
    Yes, and its answers (1.00 / 1) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 05:36:32 PM EST
    are as good as Obama's!

    Oh, and since you asked (none / 0) (#52)
    by shoephone on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 10:31:16 PM EST
    Here's what Obama said -- days ago:

    "I want to encourage all residents of the Gulf Coast to listen to your local officials and follow their directions, including if they tell you to evacuate," he said.

    "We're dealing with a big storm and there could be significant flooding and other damage across a large area. Now is not the time to tempt fate. Now is not the time to dismiss official warnings. You need to take this seriously."

    His appearance was a reminder of the power of an incumbent president to intervene at politically advantageous moments, as he projected an image of strength and competence, just as Republicans met at their national convention in Tampa, Florida, to nominate former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to challenge Obama in November.

    Federal support

    Earlier on Tuesday, Obama said he had ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be in place more than a week ago to co-ordinate with local officials from Puerto Rico to Florida, Louisiana and other Gulf of Mexico states.

    "Right now, we already have response teams and supplies ready to help communities in the path of the storm," he said.

    And just to freak you out, yeah, I linked to Al Jazeera.


    Freak me out?? (1.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 05:35:54 PM EST
    Heck, I expect you to watch and believe Al Jazerra

    Your doing a heck of a job, Barry.



    Just as we expect you ... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 06:08:42 PM EST
    ... to watch - and believe - Fox News, Jim.

    lol... you're (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 05:37:42 PM EST
    He's what, jimakaPPJ? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Zorba on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 08:02:36 PM EST
    I think your response may have been cut off.  Not scanning, here.   ;-)

    Sorry, I don't watch Al Jazeera (none / 0) (#103)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 11:28:55 PM EST
    I don't have cable.

    But, yeah, you certainly are acting all freaked out. Just as I predicted.


    Pia Sundhage, coach of the U.S. Women's Soccer (none / 0) (#24)
    by caseyOR on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 02:26:29 PM EST
    Team, is resigning to move back to her native Sweden. She is coaching today's game against Costa Rica and next week's game (all part o the women's team victory tour), but then she is gone.

    Pia has been great coach. This team has flourished under her. And she was such a pleasant change from Greg Ryan.

    No idea who will replace her, but I am sorry to see her go.

    Today's game is in it's 31st minute with the  U.S. leading 3-0. Abby Wambach scored two of the goals bringing her total in international play to 145. She is second only to Mia Hamm's record of 158 international goals.

    Theme of GOP convention: (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 02:29:08 PM EST
    Wow - THAT surely was lost in translation! (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ruffian on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 02:54:56 PM EST
    Happy is not the emotion that comes to mind from the bits I saw.

    Except maybe for Mitt. There was one point in one of the applause breaks in his speech where he had that look of sheer proud soaking-up-the-adoration-of-the-crowd-bliss that one usually only sees in actors playing Julius Caesar at his height of world domination.


    I listened to the last night. (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 02:58:58 PM EST
    Rubio:  up from the depths of poverty.  Not all that happy.

    Clint:  definitely not happy.

    You may be correct re Romney, although he seemed most interested in discussing his parents.  I had forgotten his mother ran for public office.  I did think it was funny Mitt sd. he had to leave MI because, if he stayed, he could never make it on his own w/o Dad's legacy overshadowing his accomplishments.  Nothing about the money he took along.  


    Hilarious. (none / 0) (#33)
    by lilburro on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 03:06:21 PM EST
    From Wiki re George Romney: (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 03:13:22 PM EST
    In the United States, Romney grew up in humble circumstances.[19] The family subsisted with other Mormon refugees on government relief in El Paso, Texas for a few months before moving to Los Angeles, California,...

    RIP Hal David (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 07:22:56 PM EST
    Of Bacharach - David songwriting fame. 'Walk on By' one of my all time favorites.

    Hal and Burt wrote some great songs. (none / 0) (#55)
    by caseyOR on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 11:07:57 PM EST
    Walk On By is a good song. At the top of my list of favs is I Say A Little Prayer for You.

    Here is that song playing an important part in what may be my favorite Julia Roberts movie My Best Friend's Wedding.

    RIP, Hal. You've left us with a wealth of good memories.


    Ryan's math. (none / 0) (#43)
    by lentinel on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 08:14:09 PM EST
    Ryan had claimed that he had run a marathon in "two hours and fifty-something" minutes.

    He was caught having lied.

    So he confessed saying that, "he should have rounded his marathon time to four hours, not three".

    Simple mistake, rounding off 2 hours and fifty minutes to four hours.

    Can you imagine Ryan's Grocery Store?
    He would accidentally lean on the scale while rounding out your two pounds of hamburger to four.

    I find this lie to be particularly revealing (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Peter G on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 09:54:46 PM EST
    It was not a slip of the tongue, and does not seem to be innocent misremembering.  The first question in the sequence of the interview was:  "Are you still running?" and his answer was "Yeah, I hurt a disc in my back, so I don't run marathons anymore. I just run ten miles or [less]."  So, he begins with a lie, that is, the assertion that he used to run marathons (plural), but now can only run "ten miles" because of a back injury. Turns out, as I understand it, that he only ran a marathon once, when he was 20.  The interviewer follows up: "But you did run marathons at some point?"  Ryan confirms, rather than corrects, the assertion: "Yeah, but I can't do it anymore, because my back is just not that great."  Then comes the whopper about his "best" time (best of one).  Again, the interviewer reacts, giving Ryan a chance to correct himself, saying, "Holy smokes."  But Ryan responds, "I was fast when I was younger, yeah." This seems more like pathological or narcissistic lying, not a mistake of any kind. I think this is going to hurt him a lot, worse than most of the cynical, political misrepresentations.

    Some hilarious comments (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by NYShooter on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 10:30:57 PM EST
    over at The Reality Based Community:

    "..Ryan ran a two-fifty-something marathon exactly the same way he plans to balance the budget:... in his dreams."

    And, my favorite:

    "Ryan ran a sub-3 hour marathon. Maybe he's Kenyan. Anyone seen his birth certificate?"


    And there's this one: (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by shoephone on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 10:33:15 PM EST
    Honey, you can't hide your Ryan eyes.

    For those who don't know the "Reality Based (none / 0) (#66)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 12:26:39 PM EST
    Community" blog (a bunch of California public policy profs, one of whom is a college friend of mine), here are the links, of which there are two.  The second, not my friends, may be the better of the two, since it is shorter and more ironic in its humor style.

    It was pretty much (none / 0) (#49)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 10:22:42 PM EST
    three lies in one. He went for the hat trick.

    Well, growing up in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#58)
    by observed on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 11:27:15 PM EST
    he may have excelled at hockey too.
    Shall we find out his little league hat trick stats?

    That's what I take it as too (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 12:12:37 PM EST
    Pathological lying...why would anyone lie about this?  It's dumb

    He said though about his times, that they were in the low 3's and wasn't it a couple of high 2's?  For me there are like at least four marathons in that statement.


    I (none / 0) (#44)
    by lentinel on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 08:20:55 PM EST
    had it backwards.

    He rounded off four hours to two hours and fifty minutes.

    Ryan's grocery would charge you for four pounds and give you a little under three. Sounds fair.

    Got two tens for a five?


    There's (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 08:55:01 PM EST
    some kind of Ayn Rand thing about the "good lie" Maybe he buys into that. I don't know but it seems Lyin' Ryan has become an appropriate nickname for him.

    Note to the Michigan Wolverines (none / 0) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 10:26:53 PM EST
    Might want to steer clear of those overrated SEC teams in the future.

    Especially having to (none / 0) (#62)
    by brodie on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 09:26:26 AM EST
    go up against one of the best defenses in the country with a small QB who can barely see over the line and who is more a natural runner than passer.  And having to play without their best RB.  And having to travel to the other team's home region.

    This was going to be doubtful though even w/o Toussaint.  As I said yesterday Robinson doesn't impress me as a natural QB or great passer despite the stats.  Michigan needed someone bigger with thread the needle/stand and deliver skills.  Instead they had a guy constantly floating the ball high and off target.  And his receivers looked small fry too -- what's up with MI having so many tiny guys in key positions?

    And pathetic defense too.  UCLA's might be better this year.

    Overall embarrassment by a team that's clearly overrated, even allowing for Toussaint.  Next year they should try to recruit actual college-sized players for the important positions.


    Losing record - Winning money (none / 0) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 10:34:05 PM EST
    BTD's record for college picks falls to 9-10, but due to betting prowess and hitting his big game of the day with Alabama for 5 units...

    BTD NCAA update +$300

    Another wacko Republican (none / 0) (#56)
    by shoephone on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 11:19:36 PM EST
    goes AWOL on reality.

    "Oh, life of the mother - exception of life of the mother, rape and incest. Yeah, I've always -- that's a mantra, you know, I've said it so often it just spills out," he said. "If you really - there are very few pregnancies as a result of rape, fortunately, and incest -- compared to the usual abortion, what is the percentage of abortions for rape? It is tiny. It is a tiny, tiny percentage." .... [I]n terms of the percentage of pregnancies, percentage of abortions for rape as compared to overall abortions, it's a tiny, tiny percentage," Bartlett said. [...]

    "Most abortions, most abortions are for what purpose? The just don't want to have a baby! The second reason for abortion is you'd like a boy and it's a girl, or vice versa. And I know a lot of people are opposed to abortion who are pro-choice," Bartlett said.

    The cockroaches are streaming out of the woodwork.

    It's an offensive quote, but (none / 0) (#57)
    by observed on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 11:25:46 PM EST
    I don't read him as agreeing with Akin.
    He's simply saying that out of all pregnancies, very few come from rape or incest.
    Probably true ( I hope!), but hardly a justification for his callous attitude.

    You're missing the point (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 11:44:12 AM EST
    about calling this quotation a lie.  It's not so much the first paragraph (frequency of pregnancies due to rape and incest); even if true, that's pretty much irrelevant to issue of whether the law should prohibit abortion in those cases.  One percent of a large number is still a a significant number.  Besides, protecting the rights of a small minority is still important; that's what makes it a matter of rights. The ignorant or lying statement is the second paragraph.  It falsifies and misrepresents the reasons women choose to have abortions, for the purpose of deprecating that choice.  The first reason stated ("just don't want to have a baby") is a gross distortion of the reasons actually given by women when asked this question (see first link).  And sex selection is nowhere near second on the list of reasons, at least among U.S. women.

    I hoped it was clear I didn't agree (none / 0) (#67)
    by observed on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 03:01:48 PM EST
    with the sentiments of the quote.
    I simply had the impression that people found the quote equivalent to Akin's, which I don't agree with. This is more like the candidate who compared rape to a pregnant, unmarried daughter.

    That part was clear, but (none / 0) (#71)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 07:39:41 PM EST
    you addressed only the first part of the quote.  I wanted to call attention to the second part.  We both ignored the third point that Cong. Bartlett made -- that many pro-choice individuals are personally and privately anti-abortion.  This is no doubt true, at least to some extent.  But so what?  He seems not to understand that this just shows that the pro-choice position is about respecting others' (especially women's) autonomy, and not about imposing your personal views on others.  The anti-choicers, on the other hand, seem to feel that it follows from their own strongly held moral and/or religious views that others (especially women) should be denied the right to make decisions in matters of the gravest personal importance to themselves.

    Supporting your contention that.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by NYShooter on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 05:43:48 PM EST
    "It was not a slip of the tongue, and does not seem to be innocent misremembering."

    Robert Kleiman, from The R.B.C, states:

    "Every political campaign consists of some truth, some falsehood, and some bullsh*t. What's different about Romney-Ryan is that it's bullsh*t all the way down. Frankfurt is right to say that b.s. is a greater enemy of the truth than is a lie. And by the same token, a b.s. artist in politics is a much graver threat to the Republic than a mere liar.
    A liar merely denies the truth he knows to be true; a chronic bullsh*tter has forgotten that the truth even exists. So Ryan can, in all subjective sincerity, talk about "the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak" while proposing a budget plan that cuts taxes for billionaires and health care for poor sick children."



    Mark A.R. Kleiman (none / 0) (#70)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 07:16:26 PM EST
    that is, founder of RBC and a prof of public policy at UCLA (on leave this semester at U.Va., I believe). Not someone TL would agree with on marijuana legalization, but otherwise our kind of thinker.

    Rats! where did "Robert" come from? (none / 0) (#75)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 12:07:08 AM EST
    Anyway, congratulations, you scored a hat trick;
    Your comments...You're right, right, and right again.

    It's doubtful the claim it's true (none / 0) (#59)
    by shoephone on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 11:49:10 PM EST
    Of course, it depends on your definition of the word "tiny." About 32,000 pregnancies occur as a result of rape each year in the U.S. That's the reported number. Now, let's remember how few rapes are actually reported in the first place and... well, the "tiny amount" claim begins to sound not just callous, but totally made up. The fact is, none of these freaky white men have a clue as to what they are talking about. In which case, I think it's time for them to STFU.

    Bill Murray to play (none / 0) (#63)
    by brodie on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 10:39:09 AM EST
    a philandering president FDR in upcoming film Hyde Park on Hudson.

    Sounds interesting, and a refreshing change from the usual whitewashed, overly deferential treatment Roosevelt is typically given in film.  And apparently the filmmaker doesn't take this angle too far into trashy tabloid territory.  

    I look forward to finally seeing a film that brings the real three-dimensional Roosevelt to life rather than the cardboard textbook stick figure we normally see.

    GOP convention (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 05:31:51 PM EST
    official video Lea bed Clint's contribution on the cutting rooom floor.

    I was going to say . . . (none / 0) (#72)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 07:56:11 PM EST
    RNC not into Eastwooding :) But ya beat me to it.

    Not making this up (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 07:01:30 AM EST
    Joke Line is on with Soledad and he says as Democrats, our diversity is our problem.  We don't have an angry white guy caucus and I guess according to Joe it is "killing" us.  And he says that the LGTB caucus has won its agenda.  With who?  It isn't law.  What rock did Joe.........

    I'm supposed to be worried because according to Sociologist-NOT Dana Bash, we are losing working class white males.  I think that is temporary.  We are asking working class white males to evolve and give up the notion that they are the default setting for social dominance.  They aren't immediately happy about that.  They were born and grew up with a different idea in their head...oh well.

    We are a conglomeration of caucuses according to Joke Line, we have no uniform message. And we dog whistle?   I think that Joe misunderstands the meaning that was granted that metaphor at its birth, it requires bigots who want to be catered to while they remain in hiding....you know....people who hate inclusiveness and social diversity.  What an idiot though.  How does he still to this day have a job?

    Soledad went to stupidville too.  She is going to talk about the GOP strategy in Charlotte.  Are they having two conventions?  What was the Dem strategy in Tampa?  Who starts all these bull$hit nonexistent prevailing topics, talking points, and concerns?  If it's Soledad, she isn't a journalist, she's a big fat gossip queen.

    Ahh, the heart of bigotry (1.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Slayersrezo on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 08:38:03 AM EST
    Military Tracy thinks she knows enough about the lives of "working class" white males.

    I wonder what she considers working class. How many white males earning under 60K does she know or even talk to?
    Just how much does she think the interests of the white 1 percent in wealth or political power coincide with the mostly overworked, underpaid, and societally disrespected "average joe"?

    And she might want to ask herself why married women seem to be leaning Republican. Can it be because there is some truth to the contention that the "empowered" single woman needs government as her sugar daddy?


    Silly "questions" (3.67 / 3) (#81)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 08:48:15 AM EST
    And she might want to ask herself why married women seem to be leaning Republican. Can it be because there is some truth to the contention that the "empowered" single woman needs government as her sugar daddy?

    Between your abortion arguments and your "empowered single woman needs government as a sugar daddy", it must be hard to keep all that anger and resentment contained.

    BTW - Do you really think that putting a question mark at the end of these claims makes it less obvious that you don't have a single shred of evidence to back them up?


    I'm married to a working class white male (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 08:51:15 AM EST
    I come from the loins of a working class white male who came from the loins of a working class white male who died still somewhat pi$$ed at me because I would not promise him I would vote a straight Democratic ticket all the days of my life.

    Just cuz I got ovaries instead of conjones, does not mean that I know nothing about working class white guys.  I also know that some accept that they have say in their destiny and that everyone gets good days and bad days, and some snivel about every setback and blame it on brown people and those loose uppity women ruining everything for them, and they go home and kick the dog.


    Yes (none / 0) (#104)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 03:06:25 AM EST
    I wonder what kind of "humanist" thinks that all of working class mens (white included)problems are either in their heads or self-inflicted by members of their own sex?

    I call bigotry, and you do nothing to disabuse me of this notion.
    Hey, I've got women friends, including former lovers, and yet you don't hesitate to call me "misogynist". I'm sure the fact that I have black friends that come over to my house, my work, and that I sup with, won't stop you from accusing me of racism b/c I don't buy your "victim group" based idea of oppression and empathy.

    So if the shoe fits, wear it proudly.


    Just because a woman slept with you (none / 0) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 12:46:58 PM EST
    Doen't mean you are respectful of women.  My husband says that anybody can hide who they really are for about six months :)  Not kidding, he tells everyone that when they are dating, he told his own daughter that a lot.

    She has Reince on now (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 07:07:05 AM EST
    They have set up a rapid response team down the street in the NASCAR hall of fame.  Just don't!

    Just don't! Just don't! (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 07:11:46 AM EST
    Reince says that Dubya wasn't at the convention because he heard that Bush senior hasn't been doing very well.  So Jeb decided, "Phuck dad!" and now Dubya is the caring considerate thoughtful child?  Are you kidding me Reince?

    Has everyone in the GOP become a pathological liar?


    Hey, maybe Reince is right (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 07:19:15 AM EST
    Maybe Bush senior told Junior, "If you show your face at that convention alongside your brother, I'll have a heart attack."

    The failure of feminism in the labor movement (none / 0) (#82)
    by Slayersrezo on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 08:50:56 AM EST
    Quoted from :

    From the comment thread:
    "...No matter how racist, ethnocentric, or classist every other labor movement had been up to that point, they all identified their fight as being between themselves and the rich, and they pitted themselves against their employers to gain collective bargaining rights. As a labor movement, feminism was a whole other animal. Not only did it pit itself against men, instead of the rich, it didn't even seek collective bargaining power, instead opting for changes to the law itself, asking the government to do their bidding as a matter of equality relatively against men, not in order to ensure a living wage from the employer in absolute terms. That would make perfect sense if, behind the scenes, employers weren't using female workers to drive down wages for men in the first place. Men's wages aren't fixed, so "equality" is a very relative thing. By failing to adequately protect men's wages, pegging women's wages against men's is a fool's errand.

    Feminist labor activism does pit one part of the working class against the other (men vs women), while failing to sufficiently fight against outsourcing and the shift towards part-time, benefits-free transient workers...This is why it was so scary when some feminists outright celebrated the "mancession" as a win for women, along with making up lots of uninformed theories purporting that men's primitive biology was unsuited to the new "information economy." ... Great in a gender war, but lousy in a class war."

    Here's the link (none / 0) (#84)
    by Slayersrezo on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 08:52:15 AM EST

    Once again, clicking on the link button, pasting the URL, looking for any malformed HTML... lets see if it posts.


    Still no link (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 08:53:17 AM EST
    I'm sure the website is (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 08:54:05 AM EST
    Reuters or Rolling Stone or something comparable.

    So what am I supposed to do (none / 0) (#87)
    by Slayersrezo on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 08:53:22 AM EST

    Here's a disabled link with the "t"'s replaced by xx's...


    Feminist critics dot org (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 08:54:33 AM EST
    Now there's some journalism

    Read the POST or be quiet about the site (none / 0) (#91)
    by Slayersrezo on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 08:58:52 AM EST
    The authors on the site identify as egalitarian feminists. The name may be unfortunate but you should check out the commenting rules and things. It's one of the most cordial sites on the whole web, and feminists can get whole threads that are limited to just them and the moderators if they so desire.

    Pi$$ off (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 09:05:52 AM EST
    Your link doesn't even work, and McAfee will likely block the site :)

    Tell me again why I should take you seriously? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Slayersrezo on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 10:39:15 PM EST
    I ask you to check a site out and you refuse to not only do so but claim "Macaffee" will probably block the site. I suppose you think its a hate site or porn site or has malware on it. Or maybe replacing two "x"'s with "t"'s is beyond your technical capability. I put it like that to try to avoid messing up the formats of this page as I got plenty of whining comments the last time I couldn't get the damn link button to work.

    That's why I will never respond to a question by you again no matter how heartfelt and if you get any more responses from me they will only be in response to your ever present insults. Congratulations on turning a partial ideological foe (I've never held half the positions you and a few others love to assign me) into someone who has nothing but personal disdain for you.


    Yeah, cuz it isn't like we still get (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 08:52:48 AM EST
    paid less for the same labor.  

    That's right, you don't. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Slayersrezo on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 08:56:58 AM EST
    Get paid less for the same labor.

    Do you really need to me to link to the dozens of studies, books, columns, etc that debunk this myth?

    I've been hearing this "70 cents on the dollar" and similar crap for 30 plus years now. Time and time again it's debunked or pointed out that its a group average (and thus subject to all sorts of variables for life choice) but it never makes a difference.
    Even things like this http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
    don't change the endless wail of victimization.


    Let's see them (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 11:46:01 AM EST
    Do you really need to me to link to the dozens of studies, books, columns, etc that debunk this myth?

    Because, so far, you're failing to "debunk" anything.  From your own link:

    Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women -- even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area -- are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.

    But absolutely - let's see the links to the "dozens of studies that debunk this myth" ... because there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of studies which always find that some portion of the wage gap is unexplained even after controlling for other factors (experience, education, marital status, children, etc.).


    The way you've behaved in comment threads? (1.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Slayersrezo on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 10:43:03 PM EST
    Do your own damn research.
    The one hint I will give you is that the more factors a study takes into account, the smaller this "gap" grows, and the gap DOES approach zero, if it's never quite there.

    At this point, I refuse to take this "issue" seriously ever again.


    That's it?!? (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:11:17 AM EST
    Do you really need to me to link to the dozens of studies, books, columns, etc that debunk this myth?

    Actually, yes ... since they only exist in your head.  Although I guess, since you included "columns", you could simply link to a bunch of winger opinion pieces or Schlafly/IWF articles ... maybe some AWM sites, too.  Not remotely convincing in the least, but hey ... work with what you've got, huh?

    I, OTOH, prefer the actual, peer-reviewed studies.  The U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee reviewed the numerous studies on the gender pay gap and took testimony from experts in the field.  They noted that that hundreds of studies reviewed always find some portion of the wage gap is unexplained (and attributed to gender discrimination) even after controlling for other factors that influence earnings.  The percentage varies by study, but it's there.

    OTOH - I can understand why some blogger on feministcritics.org would write an opinion piece expressing disbelief.  I also understand why you would choose to believe him ... and why you didn't provide the promised "dozens of links debunking this myth".


    Time and again it's debunked? (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 08:46:13 AM EST
    Oh, brother...

    Here's some info from the Department of Labor:

    Myth No. 1:  It's an exaggeration to say women only earn 77 cents for every dollar men earn:

    REALITY:  The size of the pay gap depends on how you measure it. The most common estimate is based on differences in annual earnings (currently about 23 cents difference per dollar). Another approach uses weekly earnings data (closer to an18 or 19 cents difference). Analyzing the weekly figures can be more precise in certain ways, like accounting for work hours that vary over the course of the year, and less accurate in others, like certain forms of compensation that don't get paid as weekly wages. No matter which number you start with, the differences in pay for women and men really add up. According to one analysis by the Department of Labor's Chief Economist, a typical 25-year-old woman working full time would have already earned $5,000 less over the course of her working career than a typical 25-year old man. If that earnings gap is not corrected, by age 65, she will have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars over her working lifetime. We also know that women earn less than men in every state and region of the country, and that once you factor in race, the pay gap for women of color is even larger.

    Myth No. 2:  There's no such thing as a gender pay gap - but if there is, it's not about discrimination:

    REALITY: Decades of research shows a gender gap in pay even after factors like the kind of work performed and qualifications (education and experience) are taken into account. These studies consistently conclude that discrimination is the best explanation of the remaining difference in pay. Economists generally attribute about 40% of the pay gap to discrimination - making about 60% explained by differences between workers or their jobs. However, even the "explained" differences between men and women might be more complicated. For example: If high school girls are discouraged from taking the math and science classes that lead to high-paying STEM jobs, shouldn't we in some way count that as a lost equal earnings opportunity? As one commentator put it recently, "I don't think that simply saying we have 9 cents of discrimination and then 14 cents of life choices is very satisfying." In other words, no matter how you slice the data, pay discrimination is a real and persistent problem that continues to shortchange American women and their families.

    Myth No. 3:  If you account for the jobs that require specialized skill or education, the gender pay gap goes away.

    REALITY: The pay gap for women with advanced degrees, corporate positions, and high paying, high skill jobs is just as real as the gap for workers overall. In a recent study of newly trained doctors, even after considering the effects of specialty, practice setting, work hours and other factors, the gender pay gap was nearly $17,000 in 2008. Catalyst reviewed 2011 government data showing a gender pay gap for women lawyers, and that data confirms that the gap exists for a range of professional and technical occupations. In fact, according to a study by the Institute for Women's Policy Research that used information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women earn less than men even within the same occupations. Despite differences in the types of jobs women and men typically perform, women earn less than men in male dominated occupations (such as managers, software developers and CEO's) and in those jobs commonly filled by women (like teachers, nurses and receptionists). In a recent review of 2010 Census data, Bloomberg found only one of 285 major occupations where women's median pay was higher than that of men - personal care and service workers. Because the data showed a particularly large pay gap in the financial sector, Bloomberg suggested that for women on Wall Street, shining shoes was the best way to earn more than the men.

    Myth No. 4:  If there's a pay gap, it's women's fault - they're the ones who choose more flexible jobs and who drop in and out of the workforce because of their family obligations.

    REALITY: Putting aside whether it's right to ask women (or men) to sacrifice financially in order to work and have a family, those kinds of choices aren't enough to explain away the gender pay gap. The gender gap in pay exists for women working full time. Taking time off for children also doesn't explain gaps at the start of a career. And although researchers have addressed various ways that work hours or schedule might or might not explain some portion of the wage gap, there may be a "motherhood penalty." This is based on nothing more than the expectation that mothers will work less. Researchers have found that merely the status of being a mother can lead to perceptions of lowered competence and commitment and lower salary offers.

    Myth No. 5:  There's no need to do anything about the pay gap - it will fix itself:

    REALITY: It has been nearly fifty years since Congress mandated equal pay for women, and we still have a pay gap. There is evidence that our initial progress in closing the gap has slowed. We can't sit back and wait decades more. Just this year the Department of Labor launched an app challenge, working to give women the tools they need to know their worth. My office continues to increase its enforcement of requirements that federal contractors pay workers without discriminating on the basis of race or gender. And we are teaming up with other members of the National Equal Pay Task Force to ensure a coordinated federal response to equal pay enforcement. You can read more about our work on equal pay here.

    See also:  The Top 10 Facts About the Wage Gap

    So, is the Department of Labor in on the okey-doke us wimmens are trying to put over on you poor, benighted men?  Are you one of those men who think that if the damn women had known their place, at home with the kids, and not gone out into the job market and taken jobs away from the men who needed them to provide for their families, we wouldn't be in whatever socio-economic pickle we are?  Have you had too many women bosses you felt were not as competent as you or some other man in your workplace?

    Someone or something sure did a number on you, because as much as you think you are discussing these issues rationally, you give yourself away time and again.


    I see that (1.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 03:43:35 PM EST
    and raise you CONSAD

    Now if only someone could produce a person, who TODAY (and not in the 1970's or 1980's) alleges she is hired for the exact same spot as a man in a non-negotiable position and paid less.


    That's it? You and jb today, citing (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 03:55:56 PM EST
    a report commissioned by the Bush administration that couldn't fully explain the gap?

    Here, try these on for size.


    I've actually read those reports (1.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 04:55:16 PM EST
    And they are not as comprehensive as CONSAD.

    Once again, I ask for a living , breathing example of a woman who (heck, I'll take anytime in the past ten years) is hired for the exact same job as a man in a fixed-salary position and paid less. I haven't seen you or anyone produce such a person.

    The more variables taken into account the smaller the gap grows indicating that any residual sexism is not a problem. I'm not going to count invisible victims of imaginary sexism. Only a fool would think that group pay averages between hundreds of millions of people would come out to exactly the same , esp if one of those groups of people takes significant time out of work and off work and has more flexibility to find a mate who will not expect them to work at all.

    Keep tilting at your windmills.


    "Not as comprehensive"? (3.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:01:53 PM EST
    You mean in your opinion, it's "not as comprehensive".


    I'm shocked.

    BTW - There are hundreds of studies verifying the gender gap, but you choose some BS study cited at feministcritics.org.



    You can't "raise" someone ... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:03:26 PM EST
    ... using a single, monopoly-money study.

    And, Yman, from the link, (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:46:24 PM EST
    this would be an appropriate reaction to pretty much all of what Slayer has been arguing:

    This is breathtakingly ignorant; if Ballgame knew the first thing about wage gap studies, or had bothered to do even ten minutes of research, he'd realize his argument is ridiculous.


    And thanks for that link - excellent arguments.


    You should read the comments, Anne (1.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:40:49 PM EST
    Ballgame effectively demolishes Amp's post and shows that he is being dishonest in his use of it.

    I hate liars. Are you one, or are you going to at least try to see if what I am saying is true? It's comment number 32 in that thread.


    Feminist critics has a post devoted (1.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:35:38 PM EST
    to taking down that amptoons post. Indeed, commenter "ballgame" can be found in the comments there owning the blog proprieter's use and abuse of CONSAD.

    Would it surprise you that I read this post at "Alas" when it first came out? I've been dealing with feminist arguments about this craptastic ridiculous contention for over ten years now, on the interwebz. And I remember as a freaking boy reading the 70 cents to every man's dollar crap. When I was a child I even used to believe it.

    I hate being lied to.


    Congrats to him (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:51:28 PM EST
    OTOH - I don't find his post or his comment nearly as "comprehensive" as Ampersand's article.


    OTOH, maybe if you ever live up to your promised dozens of links to studies debunking the gender gap "myth", we could look at the actual evidence rather than a blog post or a single, flawed study commissioned by Bush which debunks nothing, but merely minimizes the gender gap to somewhere between 5-7%.  (No big deal, says Slayersrezo.  Great experiment ... how about you take a 5-7% pay cut - or better yet - be paid 5-7% less than your female co-workers doing the same job.


    I'd be happy to provide links to actual studies confirming the gender gap, whenever you get around to posting those "dozens of links" debunking it.  Gotta admit though, given that your only evidence so far is a single study and a blog post, neither of which do what you claim,...

    ... I won't be holding my breath.

    I hate being lied to, too ... ;)


    Took about 20 seconds (3.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:10:35 PM EST
    Now if only someone could produce a person, who TODAY (and not in the 1970's or 1980's) alleges she is hired for the exact same spot as a man in a non-negotiable position and paid less.

    Turns out those "windmills" do exist.



    20 Seconds for you to do shoddy, dishonest (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:31:29 PM EST
    I specifically asked for cases where pay negotiation was not a factor. This woman was complaining about her evaulation (subjective process) she wasn't claiming that all male managers come in at $$ and are guaranteed this and that all female managers come in at --$$.

    Sorry, but reading comprehension - and honesty - are not your strong points. And until or unless you actually answer a question I asked, you will be ignored.


    You must have trouble reading ... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:33:15 PM EST
    ... your own posts, since I quoted you:

    Now if only someone could produce a person, who TODAY (and not in the 1970's or 1980's) alleges she is hired for the exact same spot as a man in a non-negotiable position and paid less.

    Of course later, in another post, you try to move your own goalposts by eliminating "alleges" and adding all sorts of ridiculous qualifications.  So after rethinking your ridiculous challenge, you try to cover up by limiting it to jobs that use absolutely zero subjective criteria when determining pay.  IOW - jobs that, much like the "dozens of studies" you can't link to - only exist in your mind.

    That's funny.

    BTW - You already said you were going to ignore me.  Seems like this would be one, little thing that you could actually accomplish.


    Oh Jesus, got anything more recent than this (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 09:04:39 AM EST
    Remember that documented strange economic blurb that occured briefly when companies were laying off their most expensive employees at the beginning of the Bush recession?  They laid off all the men.  That is all this writing is documenting.  Now that employers got men to take less in wages, they began getting rid of the female employees them in droves.  Come up with something 2012 if you want me to take you seriously at all.

    This writing also does not say at the time of its writing that things were 50/50, it only says the dynamic of women being paid less appeared at that time to be lessening, before they fired all the women.


    The so-called "pitting" is primarily (none / 0) (#95)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 03:35:29 PM EST
    The product of an oft used "divide & conquer" gambit.  The approach would deliberately undercut progress on equal pay by the false claim that the portion of the economic pie for laborers cannot/should not grow.  We all know that the fear mechanism can be potent...until such time as the majority--both men & women union members  (and all workers) realize the few running such show or operation are scamming most of the $$$ while telling the men it's the women's fault etc. etc.

    BTW, political scientists long ago discovered that married women are more likely to vote Republican than their single sisters.  Sociological factors, with several cross-currents, account for that tendency.  What has been an interesting change in recent elections though is something exemplified by the Colorado 2010 Election won by Senator Bennett.  Women played a significant role in that victory...including suburban married women.  That model is now being tracked by the Obama campaign.  For a quick look-see on how the "married suburban women" demographic continues to evolve, consider the Ann Romney "I love you, women" shout-out at the Repub conclave last week.  Pretty obvious....