Reason Morning Links: Press Pool Shenanigans, Rapture Radio, and the Spanish Spring

|

The latest from Reason.tv: "The Guatemalan Telecommunications Miracle."

NEXT: Can the FAA Be Trusted to Fix Air-Traffic Control?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Tolerant Class Has Its Limits

    Danish filmmaker Lars von Trier has been condemned and declared “persona non grata” by the Cannes Film Festival for saying that he sympathizes with Adolf Hitler.

    http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin…..Trier.html

    1. You know who declared the Jews “persona non grata”?

      1. Ezra Pound?

      2. Yassir Arrafat? Hamas?

      3. pope benedikt?

      4. Cynthia McKinney and her father?

        1. Underzog?

      5. Jesse Jackson?

      6. A maid from Guinea?

      7. Screw you, guys. I’m going home.

      8. Jewish mothers?

      9. The Pharaoh?

      10. Someone who doesn’t know the difference between plural and singular?

      11. Mel Gibson?

      12. FDR?

    2. At one point, Dunst leaned over and whispered to von Trier, “Oh my God, this is terrible.”

      I’d like to think she’d whisper the same thing to Hitler in his bunker, at the end.

    3. The festival “provides artists from around the world with an exceptional forum to present their works and defend freedom of expression and creation,” the statement said. The board “profoundly regrets that this forum has been used by Lars von Trier to express comments that are unacceptable, intolerable, and contrary to the ideals of humanity and generosity that preside over the very existence of the festival.”

      lol at doublethink

  2. re: protests in Spain
    “The protesters are not identifying with any particular political party, Spanish media say, but they are getting more organised.”

    Seriously Spain, you can’t do anything right. First you get the partisan ideology, then you get organized, THEN you protest. Do I have to draw a flow chart??

  3. Even fresh out of college, women still make less than men

    According to its recent Spring Salary survey, the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) found that starting salaries are up 5.9 percent for 2011 college grads.

    The news is not so good, however, for young women starting new jobs. In a separate study released last week, the same organization found that the average Class of 2010 female with a new bachelor’s degree received a $36,451 starting salary?17 percent less than the $44,159 her average male peer received. The difference can’t be explained away by major (the idea that males choose study areas that lead to higher-paying jobs)?even when salary was adjusted for this, men came out ahead in all but a few cases.

    This finding is likely to help muffle the increasingly common rationale that the long-standing pay gap persists because men choose higher-paying careers or because women take time off to have children, and as a result get behind their male peers.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/….._blog.html

    1. They will find another rationale for the pay difference, and I have a feeling we will know what it is before the rapture

      1. You dragged down the average?

        1. Awesome.

          1. NACE President Thomas Devlin
            University of CA, Berkeley?
            Can we say biased…

    2. Just an observation: there at bachelor’s degrees and bachelor’s degrees. A fair comparison has to go to the level of detail of, e.g., women chemical engineers in the petrochemical industry vs men chemical engineers in the petrochemical industry, not comparisons among all bachelor’s degrees as if they were fungible credentials for any profession.

      1. Note: I haven’t RTFA yet so if it does address the LOD issue, my apologies.

      2. That’s a good point (and one that should be remembered in comparisons of public and private sector employees, among other things).

        Of course a feminist could reply that if we found the disparity were due to genders getting very different degrees the question then is, why do women tend to get degrees in lower paying fields than men, and what can be done about that?

        1. why do women tend to get degrees in lower paying fields than men

          Because they want to.

          1. That’s like answering why Chinese people don’t like milk with “because that is their culture.” In other words its not much of an answer because it just brings up another question: why?

            Why do women want to go into these less renumerative fields? Could it have to do with a culture shaped largely by centuries of government enforced stereotypes and barriers?

            1. Could it also be partly genetic? I’ll grant that if you’re talking secretaries it’s purely a cultural thing. But for traditionally female jobs like nurses and teachers, could it be that the evolutionary role of caretaker has predisposed women to such positions?

            2. Chinese people don’t like milk because 90% of them are lactose intolerant.

              Is it now necessary to psychoanalyze the entire female gender in order to devise a way of getting them to pick other career options? Don’t we have other things to do?

            3. …milk…culture…

              Please tell me this was intentional. Loved it.

            4. Why don’t we evaluate why men pick remunerative careers instead of psychologically fulfilling ones instead? Won’t someone please think of all the emotionally stunted men who could be banging on drums naked in the woods?

            5. That’s absolutely irrelevant.

              You might persuade me that I only like watching hockey because I have been culturally programmed to like it. But if you then progress to saying, “So I am going to prevent you from watching it so that we can fix all that,” I will punch you in the face.

              So even if women go into certain fields because of cultural programming, that’s not your problem to fix. And it’s certainly not a problem you have any right to compel ME as an employer to fix.

              “Culture has conspired to make us like the wrong things!” Tough shit. Now that you have realized that, like different stuff. Or shut up.

              1. So if one group can just oppress another group long enough (via force) that preferences that put them at a political and economic disadvantage become culturally ingrained, then let it roll?

                1. Anyone who believes that as a group, men opress women is a moron. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

                2. So if one group can just oppress another group long enough (via force) that preferences that put them at a political and economic disadvantage become culturally ingrained, then let it roll?

                  Define “ingrained”.

                  That’s one of those things that I can dismiss as soon as we name it.

                  As soon as we identify it, it becomes the responsibility of the individual doing the thinking to overcome it.

                  “I have been culturally programmed to not want to be an engineer!”

                  That excuse is only valid until you verbalize it. As soon as you verbalize it, or as soon as anyone verbalizes it whom you can hear speaking, then it’s up to you to (as I said) either consciously choose to like different things, or shut up.

                  I am culturally programmed to not want to wear eye makeup.

                  If some study comes out showing that men who wear eye makeup earn higher salaries on average, I can either take advantage of that information by choosing to wear eye makeup, or not. What I can’t do is whine that I don’t want to wear eye makeup and it’s all so very, very unfair.

                  1. +1,000,000

                3. “So if one group can just oppress another group long enough (via force) that preferences that put them at a political and economic disadvantage become culturally ingrained, then let it roll?”

                  It is hell of a leap of logic to conclude that the reason women may be being paid less is because of culturally ingrained oppression limiting their own desires. It is, frankly, patronizing towards women as a group that you and the government must save them from themselves, because women do not know what they should value out of life, but you do.

              2. The only solution is to kill all of the women.

            6. It doesn’t matter why. As long as women are allowed to chose whatever major and career they are qualified for, there is no problem. Each woman is an individual who gets to choose on her own, regardless of what other women do. Believe it or not, women actually are independent agents with the ability to buck cultural norms and do whatever they want to.

            7. Why do women want to go into these less renumerative fields? Could it have to do with a culture shaped largely by centuries of government enforced stereotypes and barriers?

              Who. Gives. A. Fuck.

              They are afforded the same opportunities today as men are when it comes to entering fields of study, applying to colleges, etc. Any of the results that happen once they (both men and women) seize the opportunity they choose, studies like these don’t matter one iota. A relevant study would offer results within companies showing or not showing disparity. Only then are you getting close to an apples to apples comparison.

              1. But they are not offered the same opportunities.

                Think of blacks. For centuries the government enforced barriers and stereotypes of blacks as lazy, shiftless, shady, immoral folks. The government stops enforcing this but the beliefs go on. Even if the blacks themselves shake it potential employers, employees, customers, investors, etc., buy into it don’t just drop it and so blacks are less likely to be hired, promoted, gain employees, customers, investors, etc., and therefore have less opportunities.

                1. “For centuries the government enforced barriers and stereotypes of blacks as lazy, shiftless, shady, immoral folks.”

                  Government enforced sterotypes?

                  [CITATION NEEDED]

                  1. If that was the case, why were governments all over the world sticking them on ships and running them around to use as slave labor?

                    I think you are confusing blacks with Mexicans.

                    1. Yes sloopy, blacks have never been portrayed or stereotyped as lazy.

                      Jesus christ.

                    2. I want to know where government enforced barriers and stereotypes. You made the claim, dipshit. Now support it.

                      *This is usually where minge leaves this thread for another one because he’s too small to acknowledge where he’s overstepped and made an incorrect assertion.

                    3. You want to know where government enforced barriers to women?

                      Like barring them from practicing law (Bradwell v. Illinois), or giving male relatives presumptive authority in probate (Reed v. Reed), laws restricting women’s property rights (i.e.,pre-Married Women’s Property Acts) or laws requiring the permission of the husband before wives could make business decisions or barring women from many of the most pretigous public (and private for that matter) colleges in the nation as late as the 1970’s? That kind of thing?

                      You really are a pedantic idiot. No wonder you have such conservative views with such towering ignorance.

                    4. We never asked you where government enforced barriers and stereotypes against women. We asked you to support your claim that they did it against blacks.

                      I’m not being pedantic. I’m just tired of your bullshit. You make outlandish claims and never support them factually. You move the goalposts every time you are questioned and cant offer support and you generally argue in bad faith.

                      IOW, you are a disingenuous prick.

                    5. I thought Jesus Christ was one of the well spoken blacks. I’m so confused.

                    6. And btw, were governments doing that much slave trading? Much of it I’ve read about were private actors, though governments were plenty complicit in many ways.

                    7. But according to you, nothing can get done without the consent of government.

                      Oh, I get it. Slavery=private actors.

                      Again, you made the claim. Give a citation.

                    8. Well, let’s give you some stake.

                      If I provide citations to the effect that the slavfe trade was primarily a private one, why don’t you agree to post the following:

                      I am sloopy, both pedantic and ignorant. Hear me mew!

                      Deal?

                    9. I never asked for a citation that the slave trade was typically private. Everyone knows that.

                      No, I’m still waiting on the citation to support: “For centuries the government enforced barriers and stereotypes of blacks as lazy, shiftless, shady, immoral folks.”

                      Don’t change the subject just because you’re full of shit.

                    10. Oh lord you need a citation for the blacks claim!?!

                      Really, what first. Do you need a citation for that blacks were barred from many career paths and business opportunties? Or do you need a cite that barring people from more lucrative opportunties would lead to higher rates of poverty and less enthusiasm for the values of hard work, study, etc?

                      Do you need a cite of discriminatory treatment of blacks by the criminal justice system? Or do you need a cite about how arresting and imprisoning greater number of blacks could create, foster and re-enforce the idea of blacks as immorally criminal?

                      Jesus this is the height of pedantic idiocy.

                    11. C’mon sloopy, which of these do you need a citation for? Don’t leave the thread because you are too small to admit you just slipped in some pedantic idiotic poo.

                    12. C’mon sloopy, which of these do you need a citation for?

                      All of them. What law prevented blacks from a particular career path and how long since it was overturned?

                      Sorry, minge, but if asking someone to support their assertions is being pedantic (and they can’t offer support after an hour or so yet keep posting), then I am sloopy, both pedantic and ignorant. Hear me mew!

                      Since that’s not the case, offer some support.

                    13. sloopy, he’s probably not going to show evidence because it will point out how despicable progressives have been.

                    14. sloopy, he’s probably not going to show evidence because it will point out how despicable progressives have been.

                      Or, because it doesn’t exist.

                    15. How long ago were these government enforced barriers, MNG?

                      How long ago was the slave trade a part of the picture?

                    16. For blacks these government enforced barriers were largely dropped about forty years ago. The cultural stereotypes fostered by them last longer than forty years.

                    17. …these government enforced barriers were largely dropped about forty years ago.

                      What were the barriers (i.e. what laws were they incorporated in) and what are the statutes that dropped them?

                  2. You need a citation that government erected barriers to many lucrative, respected career paths for blacks, discriminatorily criminalized them, limited business opportunties, etc? Or you are too retarded to see how such things could create, foster and re-enforce stereotypes about blacks being lazy, shiftless and immoral?

                    Were you dropped on your head as a kid?

                    1. People are predestined to become whatever archetype this general, nebulous thing known as “society” says that they are.

                    2. To have posted this right above sloopy’s allegation of straw man is ironic indeed.

                2. Wow. I always thought all strawmen looked alike. I never knew there were black African-American ones.

                3. But they are not offered the same opportunities.

                  American women are not offered the same opportunities? Bullshit.

            8. That’s like answering why Chinese people don’t like milk with “because that is their culture.”

              No, that is like answering that Asian people tend to not like milk because they tend to be lactose-intolerant. They tend to have somewhat different genes that tend to them preferring different food choices.

              Now, notice that women have different genes than men. Are you really saying that this won’t result in them tending to have a different mix of job preferences than men? Really?

            9. why do men have a higher rate of work related fatalities?

          2. I thought it was “because they can”.

            1. No, that’s why dogs lick their balls.

              1. I thought dogs licked their balls because they don’t have opposable thumbs.

          3. Because, for whatever reasons we hashed out a while ago—women don’t do math as well, it’s all a plot by the patriarchy to keep womyn down, etc.— women don’t go into engineering or computer science as much as men do, and that’s where a lot of the money is with a bachelor’s degree.

        2. Also a good point. I don’t really know that answer. I have been around a lot of technically inclined women from an early age, so in my experience, there’s nothing odd about a woman as a scientist or engineer. I’ve had the conversation with some of them, and they don’t seem to know either.

        3. Because they don’t want to sit alongside dorks in Calculus 101?

          1. I hope this was sarcastic.

            1. Not really. The kind of hyper competitive alpha geek mindset you get in a big engineering program is very off-putting to a lot of females.

              1. And a lot of males too.

              2. OK, but if you’re basing decisions that will affect your earning potential for decades to come on not wanting to spend 4-5 years in a non-optimal social situation, just realize that those early years of fun come at a high price.

          2. Calculus is teh awesome

            1. Math is hard.

            2. I don’t know how anyone can go through life without at least a basic understanding of calculus.

              1. Evidently you can, but it doesn’t pay well. Scratch that, I know a few mechanics who know nothing more than basic algebra who make more than I do.

                1. My wife makes tons of money, and doesn’t know a thing about calculus. Or algebra.

                  But that’s probably the exception.

                  1. Chupacabra|5.19.11 @ 11:04AM|#|show direct|ignore
                    My wife makes tons of money, and doesn’t know a thing about calculus. Or algebra.

                    But that’s probably the exception.

                    Like it takes a math background to suck the blood out of goats? C’mon. You just gotta be fit.

                  2. Chupcabra, there are exceptions for certain sectors of the entertainment industry.

                2. I’d guess that if you took a random sample of federal and state employees and made them take the AP Calculus BC exam, you’d be very lucky to have the mean score crack a 2/5.

      3. I was going to point this out, but since it’s already been done I’ll make another blind guess. Women may also be more willing to accept the first job and haggle less for pay. Lower testosterone levels tend to make people less ornery and aggressive.

        1. See — I’ll buy this. As the father of five-year-old boy/girl twins, I can believe that inherent aggressiveness could easily explain the difference.
          (It’s not like we treated them any differently, but it didn’t take them long to separate themselves into boy and girl stereotypes, even when we try to discourage it. Although Katey is the reptile-catcher of the two.)

          1. Tell her I’ve got a job for her in about 15 years. You have my guarantee she’ll get an extra 15% comission on every snake she catches, 5% for lizards. My regular guy only gets 10% for snakes. But if she’s as good as you say, I’ll take the risk.

            Best regards,

            Stan Slytherin

            SnatchinSnakes Inc.

          2. I’m skeptical of these differences. We tried to treat our kids fairly gender neutral, but they get it in day care, or from their grandparents or relatives or television, etc. It’s amazing how many subtle and not-so-subtle cues are thrown at kids to let them know how to behave gender wise, if you are a parent you don’t have to even look for this, just not willfully blind yourself to it (I’m not implying btw anyone here does that).

            1. I treat my 11 year old boy like a boy and my soon-to-be 13 year old girl like a girl. This “gender-neutral” bullshit is just that…bullshit.

              Society has placed certain expectations on males and females that have developed over tens of thousands of years. Those expectations developed because the different genders tended to drift in different directions based on their own physiology. IOW, more testosterone led to certain physical traits and certain behaviors followed out of the necessity to survive. Men became physically larger than their female counterpart in every society on earth for more reasons than to peacock for mates. Conversely, womens’ bodies, throughout time have physiologically developed to be smaller and more geared toward rearing and nurturing offspring. Why would you think their mind wouldn’t evolve in the same manner?

              Ever wondered why a woman can survive about 5 times longer without food or water than a man? Their bodies are wired differently. I think it’s safe to assume that their minds are as well.

              *I realize there are physical, psychological and sexual outliers to these stereotypes, but the study was on norms, not outliers.

              1. “Those expectations developed because the different genders tended to drift in different directions based on their own physiology.”

                How the fuck do you know that? Do you realize that very similar things were said to justify different treatment of races?

                “I realize there are physical, psychological and sexual outliers to these stereotypes”

                It’s worse than that, iirc the variability within the male/female groups is greater than the variability between them.

                1. It’s worse than that, iirc the variability within the male/female groups is greater than the variability between them.

                  Physically, no. Every person in the male camp has a penis and every person in the female camp has a vagoo. There are a few hermaphrodites, like Jamie Lee Curtis, that would be considered outliers.

                  Psychologically, I would say…possibly. That is a unit that can be very hard to measure. Virtually any study can skew the questions to ensure predetermined results.

                  Sexually, I would have to say hell no. A very large percentage of men and women have engaged or want to engage in only heterosexual sex. The % of people who are gay or bisexual is nowhere near 50% (which is what your statement says).

                  1. Yeah, since there is no cultural pressure towards heterosexuality, so the fact that most people are proves it is just their uninfluenced biological choice.

                    1. Was there cultural pressure toward heterosexuality tens of thousands of years ago when there really was no culture? Doubtful.

                      It’s called reproduction, and heterosexual sex is the only way it happens. I doubt a majority of our ancestors were sitting in caves thinking about buttsecks, but were afraid to act because they were afraid what Grok, who lived three caves over, would think of them.

                    2. Shit. I need to finish that comment.

                      No, because those “cultural pressures” developed as man developed, and they mirrored what was natural as man has progressed. Is being gay natural? For some people it is. For a large majority it isn’t.*

                      *I mean this is the strictest physical sense for their own body, not as a matter of acceptance.

                    3. “Yeah, since there is no cultural pressure towards heterosexuality, so the fact that most people are proves it is just their uninfluenced biological choice.”

                      Since there is no biological imperative to procreate, and it’s not necessary to involve someone of the opposite sex for that anyway, the fact tht most people are heterosexual is entirely a cultural phenomonon.

                2. MNG, what is your proposed course of action? You seem to be just complaining at this point.

                  1. My proposed course of action includes things like Title IX and non-discrimination law, as well as simple persuasion on the social level that most gender roles are bullshit. I don’t propose anything like affirmative action, the ‘Equal Pay Acts’ that I’ve read about and such. I think government had a big hand in creating this culture, that it should lend a nudge towards ameliorating it, but not a heavy hand, because that tends to make things worse in many ways.

                    1. So your proposed course of action is laws that already exist and persuasion that’s already pervasive in our culture.

                    2. “…as well as simple persuasion on the social level that most gender roles are bullshit.”

                      The problem being that the above notion is itself a steaming pile of bullshit.

                  2. Shit, Tulpa, he’s comparing the differences between men and women, and racism.

                    MNG is off in the ditch today. Don’t bother with the tow truck.

                    1. Is it that far out to compare racism and sexism? WTF?

                    2. The point is that sex is a real difference. It doesn’t mean that policy should treat the sexes differently, since, as you point out, by many measures the variations among the same sex is greater than the average variation between the sexes. But there are differences and it is silly to expect the same choices and outcomes, no average, for both sexes.
                      Race on the other hand, is not a real difference and is based on arbitrary factors like skin color.

                      I’m all for eliminating as much actual discrimination as possible without trampling people’s rights to be a stupid bigot. But checking for equality of outcome is not the way to measure this. Women may well want different things than men, on average. If equality of outcome is the metric for how little discrimination exists, you are assuming that women are just the same as men.

                3. “How the fuck do you know that? Do you realize that very similar things were said to justify different treatment of races?”

                  Men and women of the same race self-evidently have far more physiological differences than same-sex members of different races.

            2. Oh, bullshit, MNG.

              Take math, which is important to getting good-paying jobs. My son is really good at it. He’s never needed my help doing math homework at all to get straight As. Both of my daughters, despite me tutoring them ad nauseam with their homework, hate math. Hate it hate it hate it. They struggle to get Bs.

              Both of my daughters are very good at art and writing and foreign languages. My son, not so much so. Me neither.

              Genes matter.

        2. There are studies that show that men who negotiate hard are perceived as go-getters, while women that do the same are considered shrill. This is true even when both groups use the same script. Interestingly, both men and women share this perception. So there’s a definite feedback loop here, women don’t negotiate as much because it’s not as effective, so the effectiveness goes down because people aren’t used to negotiating as much or as hard.

          1. Women are a woman’s worst enemy.

          2. Oh well, if there’s a study then I guess the matter should be settled.

            1. Me no convinced by Studies!

              1. I’m not shrill!!!

      4. A summary of the study, including some data tables, is here. The differences within a major (looks like they are classified by two-digit CIP code) are in most cases less than 10%, but still mostly favor men. The other interesting thing not mentioned in the post article is that the unemployment rate for females is lower than for males, so maybe women are more willing to take crappy job offers than men are, for whatever reason. It could be that more men are choosing to be unemployed (or go back to grad school) rather than take an offer they don’t like.

        1. The other interesting thing not mentioned in the post article is that the unemployment rate for females is lower than for males, so maybe women are more willing to take crappy job offers than men are

          Or just more stable. There’s a trade-off when it comes to salary. If you major in finance and go work in corporate finance instead of M&A, you’ll make less but have a much more secure job. For a general business degree, more women go into marketing. Of course, the study doesn’t even approach benefits. (And the title is provocative and misleading.)

          Note also that they say

          The discrepancy can’t be explained as the result of males choosing majors that lead to higher-paying jobs.

          instead of

          The discrepancy can’t be explained as the result of males pursuing higher-paying career paths.

          I’d like to see it broken down by intended career path, career goals, what they’re willing to give up (distance from home, long hours), with further breakdowns among industry and type of job. I think you’ll find a lot of those factors further narrow the gap.

      5. “To pin the blame for their lower pay entirely on young women themselves seems unfair, in my opinion. What about potential discrimination by hiring managers who, knowing young women may be unlikely to ask for more, start off by low-balling them on pay to begin with? They surely share some of the blame?as do unfriendly family workplaces, the cultures of male-dominated industries and the reality of child-care expenses in this country.”

        1. If women low-ball themselves, why are hiring managers to blame?

        2. The male-dominated industry thing probably has some merit, though it seems like a “turning around an aircraft carrier” type problem and I suspect we’re doing everything we can on that front right now.

        3. How do you “blame” the “realities” of childcare costs? It is what it is, and that hurts men equally (assuming the mother is married).

        1. What about potential discrimination by hiring managers who, knowing young women may be unlikely to ask for more, start off by low-balling them on pay to begin with?

          I think we need to stop and point out here that this is actually discrimination in the woman’s favor, since she gets the job and a male who would demand a higher salary does not.

          Women should therefore be consigned to that list of nefarious actors, like replacement workers and scabs, H-1B workers, illegal immigrants, etc., who steal jobs and lower wages.

          1. From the anecdotal evidence I can see, there are two things where women do get discriminated against. One, they don’t care if a man is married. A lot of employers don’t like married women or women in serious relationships because they worry the woman will leave to follow her husband or have kids and quit. I know a lot of women who tell me that are asked questions about their relationship status even though it is illegal. Two, fat women get the short end of the stick every time and fat men not so much.

            1. However, it should be pointed out that this is rational on the part of the company, as women taking huge chunks of time off and leaving to have babies imposes a real cost on the company.

              1. There is a great deal more cultural pressure applied to women to do such things than men. So of course women do it more, then this becomes the rationale to discriminate against them!

                Lovely.

                1. What country do you live in? For decades the cultural pressure has been driven by feminist ideas that women should pursue careers, have it all, etc. etc. and women who just wanted to be mothers were looked down on. And then when it turns out that choices have a cost associated with them, it is up to other people who didn’t make those choices to pay the cost? That is simply nonsense.

                  1. Or, shorter MNG: I don’t have agency and responsibility for my choices – the culture made me do it! WAAHHH!

                  2. Yeah, yeah, feminists have been running the world for decades.

                    Traditional gender roles have a tremondous influence in many institutions in America.

                    1. Yeah, yeah, feminists have been running the world for decades.

                      The world, no. America, pretty much, unless you have been living under a rock and are blissfully unaware of the various gynocentric laws that privilege women in marriage, divorce, child custody, paternity, Title IX discrimination against men, domestic violence laws, the vigorous prosecution of false rape accusations with no evidence and with no penalty to the false accuser, cultural discrimination against men and boys, female-oriented elementary schools where the teachers are about 95% female, 60/40 female advantage in college enrollment, etc.etc. etc.

                      Traditional gender roles have a tremondous influence in many institutions in America.
                      Examples of these in present-day America, please? And remember you said ‘many’ so one or two odd exceptions won’t suffice.

                2. There is a great deal more cultural pressure applied to women to do such things than men. So of course women do it more, then this becomes the rationale to discriminate against them!

                  Um, I think a reason there is more pressure on women to do it than men is because they are the only ones that can have babies

                  1. As I like to joke to men who announce they’re expectant fathers, “Congratulations! Nine minutes of passion for you; nine months of work for her!”

                3. “Cultural pressure”? MNG, she’s the one carrying the kid, not him. Even in a cultural vacuum, she’s going to be laid up longer just dealing with the physical effects of pregnancy and birth than he is.

                  Agreed that there’s much more pressure for her to quit and raise the kids, than there is for him to do it. Employers take that into account, whether you or Congress feel they should.

                  1. Or, what sloopy said.

            2. Yeah, but men with big boobs have a harder time getting jobs than women so endowed.

              1. That’s because the culture discriminates against moobies or something.

                1. That’s because the culture discriminates against moobies or something.

                  ORLY? Then explain Chuck Schumer.

                  1. Sadly, there is no explaining Chuck Schumer. He is simply an abomination.

          2. So your saying that my wife terk mah jerbs?

          3. Offered lower pay right away because of their gender? Oh those fortunate women!

            1. Or, initially offered the same low pay as everyone else, just more likely to accept the first low-ball offer?

            2. The same people who complain that women are paid less than men ALSO complain when strikebreakers take jobs away from union workers.

              So you’re not mocking ME. You’re mocking THEM.

              They’re the ones who have defined “people willing to work in a job for less money” as evil scabs. They’re the ones bent out of shape about the tyranny of having to compete with other people in the labor market on price.

              They also bitch about younger workers taking jobs away from the old. Same thing.

              In the old days, they used to bitch about how blacks took jobs away from whites.

              It’s all the same progressive impulse.

              1. You’re mistake is thinking that we complain about the strikebreaker, we complain about the employer. We realize the woman and the strikebreaker are pushed into taking the job at a lower pay by some type of economic disadvantage, in this case prejudice.

                1. Nope.

                  Totally false.

                  I have sat in on union strike education meetings, when they’re psyching up their membership to be willing to walk out.

                  They devote endless Powerpoint slides to the evil of the scab, complete with Jack London quotes.

                  They also inform their membership that anyone who crosses a picket line is considered a scab eternally, and must be shunned both during and after the strike, even if the strike is ultimately settled amicably. They specifically state that you can make peace with ownership and management, but never, ever, ever with the scab.

                  1. That shouldn’t be surprising, since a union’s power is inversely proportional to the number of people willing to cross their picket line.

                  2. I’m guessing that scabs that are union members who break the strike are thought of worse than the generic person who will work for less, though I can imagine neither get much love. But I can tell you that for me, and many people I know, the illegal immigrant who takes the lower offer because of his need or his status and the woman who takes the offer for the same reasons is pitied not hated.

                    And, there is the moral difference between a person just deciding to work for less than the other workers to land the job and a person being offered less because of some largely irrelevant physical trait.

                    1. And, there is the moral difference between a person just deciding to work for less than the other workers to land the job and a person being offered less because of some largely irrelevant physical trait.

                      ???????????

                      Employer: “I offer you $10 an hour.”

                      Job Seeker: “I’ll take it.”

                      So you’re saying that the moral character of this transaction changes, based on what either party fucking guesses the other party might be thinking?

                      What. The. Fuck. Ever.

                      “Well, you see, what we’ve decided is that we’re going to try to figure out what we think you were thinking the person you were talking to was thinking when you entered into this particular economic transaction. And based on our guess of what we think you thought the other person was thinking, we’re either going to punish you, or leave you in peace until next time.”

                      Please please Zombie Usama, please rise and lead the Zombie Apocalypse. Please please.

                2. We realize the woman and the strikebreaker are pushed into taking the job at a lower pay by some type of economic disadvantage, in this case prejudice.

                  They’re pushed into it? They suddenly have no free will, no agency, and can’t make any choice? You are on quite the roll today.

                3. We realize the woman and the strikebreaker are pushed into taking the job at a lower pay by some type of economic disadvantage, in this case prejudice.

                  “I knew I had to take less money, honey when the meanie in the HR department put that gun to my head.”

                  Idiot.

    3. I call bullshit. Without knowing how they compared, if they did so at all, the relative earning power of different career paths, this is completely meaningless. Maybe male college students are more likely to pursue summer internships and thereby gain on-the-job experience that makes them more valuable.

      And this quote from the article is telling: “(Or go into engineering: It was one of only two majors in the NACE study where women actually earned more.)” So yes, choice of degree and career path does make a difference, after all.

      1. Good point, Captain. I am reminded of all the kids I remember from college who assumed that good-paying jobs would flow their way simply because they held a degree, with no future effort from them — and then bitterly blamed Reagan when this did not happen.

        A degree may be a necessary condition for a good job, but it is far from a necessary condition standing alone. Comparing income among degree holders standing alone is a meaningless comparison.

        1. Sorry, that should have been “further effort,” not “future effort.”

    4. It does not muffle the criticism that men may choose higher-paying degrees, as db alludes to. Also, it may be the case that, with women outnumbering men in higher ed almost 2-1, it may be that women candidates are not as valuable as males (for diversity purposes, that is).

    5. Two things:

      1. I would want to see if this study controlled for the distance in miles between the student’s original home town and their place of hire.

      Many women, in my acquaintance, refuse to move long distances for higher pay because they would lose their social connections (i.e. the set of people they have browbeaten into sitting still to hear their boring stories and empty gossip). Men say, “Later, losers,” and move.

      2. Even if true, so what? Learn to negotiate better. If you’re a coward who is afraid to demand a higher salary as a condition of employment, fuck you you lose.

      1. Also unless the study controls for preferences, it is meaningless. Maybe women look for more quality of life benefits in a job than men do. For example, the men I know are much more likely to take a job involves a lot of travel than the women I know.

        1. this is really key – i just saw a survey this week of asking people what factors where primary in determining what job you take. More men listed salary as #1. More women listed “Life/work balance.” Make all the cultural restrictition femistist arguments you want, but this sugegsts that it is mostly because women on average chose other benifts that salary. Money isn’t the only thing people value. I’ve turned down a higher paying job once, because the hours where promised to be brutal.

          1. But feminists are still bothered. At its heart feminism is about creating a privileged class of middle and upper class white women. They should make the same money and have the same opportunities you do even though you work nights and weekends and they go home at 4:30 every day to be with their kids. To expect them to work as hard or produce as much as you is just sexist.

            1. A New York Times columnist [I can’t remember each one] openly admitted at one point that since elites have always devised society’s rules to their benefit, they should not shrink from devising rules to force employers to cater to their work/family desires.

              Naturally the only way to do that is by preventing anyone else from working harder than the mommy track people, or at least by preventing them from gaining any career advantage by doing so.

            2. A New York Times columnist [I can’t remember each one] openly admitted at one point that since elites have always devised society’s rules to their benefit, they should not shrink from devising rules to force employers to cater to their work/family desires.

              Naturally the only way to do that is by preventing anyone else from working harder than the mommy track people, or at least by preventing them from gaining any career advantage by doing so.

              1. When people realize feminism is more about butthurt than it is about empowerment, the media will treat it as it should be treated: as a joke.

    6. But the NY Times says “citified” gals are actually now making more than the guys For Young Earners in Big City, a Gap in Women’s Favor

      Are you going to argue with the them?

      1. I actually think the wage disparity in NYC is due to hipster men males taking lower pay for the irony.

        1. I think it is because young people in big cities concentrate on careers, not on having kids. So the women who choose to live in big cities are working hard.

          When they decide to have kids, they move out into the burbs where the housing is cheaper and whatnot.

    7. This finding is likely to help muffle the increasingly common rationale that the long-standing pay gap persists because men choose higher-paying careers or because women take time off to have children, and as a result get behind their male peers.

      Umm, why would that be? Its not just that women who have taken time off to have kids come back in with an experience deficit, its that women at the beginning of their breeding years pose a risk to their employers.

      That risk consists of (a) turnover, if they quit altogether, (b) the costs imposed by the Family and Medical Leave Act if they don’t, (c) lower productivity after they do have kids.

      I would be interested to know if there are any studies on the productivity of childless v. childed workers. My sense is that there is – childless workers work later, take fewer vacations and need less time off to chase their kids around.

      1. I think this is related to a study, which I can’t seem to find right now, that showed never-married women on average making more money than never-married men.

      2. That risk consists of (a) turnover, if they quit altogether, (b) the costs imposed by the Family and Medical Leave Act if they don’t, (c) lower productivity after they do have kids.

        All of those apply to male employees who have children too.

        1. Was there a medical breakthrough that I missed? I thought that whole male pregnancy thing was an urban myth.

          1. Men can take FMLA leave also. Hence the F.

      3. A good friend of mine is taking all of here FMLA leave, coming back for 1 day, then quitting, and is planning to stay home until the kid is in high school at least.

        She is the fourth woman in her department to do so this year.

    8. I call BS. What I would like to see is a breakdown by profession. Math and science jobs pay more than working as a docent at a museum.

    9. Does it deal with the fact that, while a dollar in pay is pretty much the same for men and women, a “dollar” in benefits might not be? For example, even in companies where men get paternity leave, I would not be surprised if they take less advantage of it than their female peers take of maternity leave. Employer sponsored insurance is also probably somehow more useful for women, as young women typically incur more medical costs than young men.

    10. This finding is likely to help muffle the increasingly common rationale that the long-standing pay gap persists because men choose higher-paying careers

      Well, no. RTFA:

      “Median offer by gender within academic major: Accounting: $46,997 for men, $45,508 for women; Computer Science: $56,227 for men, $52, 531 for women; Engineering: $58, 783 for men, $61,084 for women”

      Average for these typically male-dominated three disciplines combined:

      Men: $54,002

      Women: $53,041

      Difference: 2%

      Now, note that, say, an engineering degree is not the same for everyone. If you specialize in electrical engineering, your average pay will be different from that of a mechanical engineer, or from an electronic engineer.

      If you’re a woman looking to start a family, and want a job with flexible and reduced hours, you will make less than, say, a man working a buttload of hours and on call night and day.

      And so on.

      These statistics don’t prove ANY DISCRIMINATION AT ALL, because they don’t (and can’t) adjust and evaluate completely equal training and completely equal preferences for job types.

  4. Spain’s 21.3% unemployment rate is the highest in the EU – a record 4.9 million are jobless, many of them young people.

    Due, I’m sure, to Spain’s fanatical adherence to free market fundamentalism.

    1. Just think what it would be if Spain hadn’t invested in all that green technology.

      1. Or put through a mass amnesty.

    2. Nobody expects Spanish unemployment. The chief weapon is surprise and an almost fanatical adherence to free market fundamentalism.

      1. What about the cup of tea and comfortable safety net?

  5. Two days left-what would you do?

    1. Get baked. Waste time reading smack on the internet. You?

      1. I’m gonna see D.R.I. Saturday night. After the Rapture, we’re all gonna loot the liquor stores and have a tractor pull in the parking lot of a megachurch.

        1. Platypus, you do realize you can just pay for all the booze with your credit cared , and never have to pay for it? Is it Kristallnacht thing?

          1. What makes you think the people who run Citibank are going to be Raptured?

            1. +1

            2. What makes you think members of a megachurch are gonna get raptured?

              1. Ahhh… now you see the full scope of my plan. Don’t you want to see the look on their faces when they realize thare was no Rapture?

                And then they’ll come out to the parking lot & see what we’ve done to their fancy cars and SUVs.

                It’ll be a metaphor, or something.

              2. +1

        2. That RULES!

          Is the public welcome, cause I’d sure love to join you all?

    2. Invest in our children’s future.

      1. I ALMOST snorted Mt. Dew out my nose. ALMOST.

        Morning, Tim. I can see you’re a busy man…

        1. Wear a condom anyway, Mountain Dew doesn’t lower a male’s sperm count
          http://urbanlegends.about.com/…..in_dew.htm

          1. Ah, I see how it works. Substances that reduce ovum count are forced to be covered by health insurance, while substances that reduce sperm count are banned.

            1. It’s for the CHILDREN! Oh, ah… urm. Or it’s for the lack of the children…

    3. I plan on going through my neighborhood and looting the houses of my more fanatical neighbors. The old biddy across the street from me has a nice 60″ flat screen in her living room, surely Jesus won’t make her lug that thing with her.

      1. Exactly, it’s rapture not rupture. Although you may have one, lift from the knees!

        1. That CaptainSmartass has a nice ass. He’s mine for the next 48 hours.

    4. Two chicks at the same time.

  6. Private Prisons Found to Offer Little in Savings

    The conviction that private prisons save money helped drive more than 30 states to turn to them for housing inmates. But Arizona shows that popular wisdom might be wrong: Data there suggest that privately operated prisons can cost more to operate than state-run prisons ? even though they often steer clear of the sickest, costliest inmates.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05…..l?_r=1&hp;

    1. same thing for charter schools when balanced for demographics plus charters cannot properly account for public monies & no staff professional development or certification.

      1. I can tell you didn’t go to a charter school by your dearth of grammar and inability to form a coherent thought.

        1. Where is that post lacking a coherent thought? Like the prison article it simply argues that charter schools don’t do so well when you take their demographics into account. Explain how that is incoherent. Try not to be incoherent yourself when doing so.

          1. “cannot properly account for public monies & no staff professional development or certification”

            The verb is being applied to both items on either side of the &, so switching them should make sense. In this case you get “cannot properly account for no staff professional development or certification & public monies”

            Obviously there is a missing verb or something. The result is incoherent.

            1. no, the result is exactly what you didnt wish to realize

              1. Remedial classes are available if you care to raise your grammar and communication skills above the eighth grade level.

                1. But I thought OO was a 7th grader?

                  1. thinkin aint ur long suit.

          2. I think he’s referring to OO’s overall contribution to the comments.

            1. “Contribution” seems a bit generous.

          3. As JJ would say, the question is moot.

            Equating a service that must be administered by gov’t, prisons, with one that does not necessarily require gov’t administration, education, does not make sense.

            1. But I thought that everything required government administration.

              You know, if the government doesn’t do it nobody would.

              (cue reductio ad somalium)

              1. Darfoor!1!!

        2. By definition a charter school shouldn’t have to account for the tuition they receive other than documenting that the kid actually attended their school.

          I don’t demand that people document what they have spent their SSI check on. I see no reason to demand that they document every detail of how their charter school is run.

          If they don’t like their charter school they can leave and go to another or go back to public school.

          The certification question is equally moot. (WORD OF THE DAY BITCHES.) The entire point of setting up charter institutions is to increase the element of choice in education. Requiring every charter school to simply be a carbon copy of the public schools in a different building would kind of defeat the point. If the charter schools bring in a bunch of plumbers to teach Shakespeare that will either work and they’ll continue to get students or it will fail and they won’t.

          1. ^ what he said

      2. I thought charter schools were certified by local boards.

        1. nope nor are they audited

          1. I think you’re wrong about this. In Georgia, they are authorized by local boards and there is an audit process.

            link:
            here

            1. then it varies by state. thx

              1. It’s almost like each state does things differently. Imagine that, OO. They’re like little laboratories!

                1. Hmmmm….local decisions about education? We must crack on this.

                  1. back to intelligent design then

      3. Sounds like a typical democrat congresscritters office.

      4. I agree. Public Schools are just like prisons.

    2. This entire analysis is rendered moot by the element of capital risk.

      To build a public prison, you have to vote a bond issue, and then make all those interest payments. If prisoner populations change, you end up with empty prisons or prisons kept open only by political pressure from local stakeholders.

      If a private prison company builds prisons and then we, say, legalize marijuana, fuck you private prison company shareholders it’s your loss.

      1. Jinx!

        Moot – word of the day

        1. I am inclined to think that “moot” will be The Word of the Day on May 22.

      2. “If a private prison company builds prisons and then we, say, legalize marijuana, fuck you private prison company shareholders it’s your loss.”

        That is true. And it means that by privatizing prisons you are creating an entire class of people and investors who have an incentive to continue the drug war. Public employee unions are bad enough. Why add corporations to the mix?

        1. That may be a perfectly valid argument, and I am sympathetic to it in many ways.

          If you’ll recall, we had a discussion about those judges in PA taking kickbacks to send kids to juvie on trumped-up nonsense charges, and I pointed out that the corrupting influence of private prison money had a strong effect on that.

          I’m solely disputing here that you can make a cost comparison between government activity and privatized activity without taking into account the fact that privatized activity risks its own capital and not the taxpayer’s.

        2. But we already have that John in the Jail Custodian Unions and the such. It’s even more well moneyed than the private prisons would be.

      3. Unless the private prison builds with subsidies from the state, of course. And why shouldn’t they subsidize it? Think of the boost to the economy from having a prison around, or whatever.

  7. I am not a big private money guy. But this Slate article is so stupid it even offends me. The best two bits

    “In the event of such a Bitcoin panic, there would be no FDIC to insure each account and no Fed to stabilize the value of the currency. (That’s another reason to recommend the dollar.) Thus, some have even worried that Bitcoin, if it came into broad use, could “topple governments [and] destabilize economies.”

    Yeah because there no chance a government would ever debase its currency. That has never happened before.

    And this

    “The most immediate risk, though, seems to be that Bitcoins will facilitate transactions for criminals, online poker players, tax-evaders, pornographers, drug dealers, and other unsavory types tired of carrying around a Vermeer.”

    You fucking libertarian hipsters. You might as well just rob the Gardner yourself.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2294980/#add-comment

    1. It’s early in the morning to get the whole day’s dose of teh stoopid out of the way, but I think the Slatesters are going for the gold today.

      Fuck…

      1. and almanian is TEH expert on stoopit!

        1. Can we try to speak in English, please?

          1. no i prefer basque

            1. but i usully speak in idiot. thx

              1. ^^estalker^^

            2. Basque is not a language, dipshit.

              1. You expected OO to know what Euskadi is?

                I’d be surprised if it knew how to dress itself.

                1. did i say basque? i meant bisque

        2. Boy, good one Urine.

          Good morning!

    2. Bitcoin seems like the worst kind of fiat-money scam. There’s nothing stopping Alice from giving the same coin to both Bob and Carol, as the deception won’t be noticed until someone checks the history of one of the coins. By that time, Alice almost certainly has whatever physical products she wanted from Bob and Carol and has moved on.

      1. Bitcoin may be a fraud. I really don’t know. But if it is, it isn’t because of the stupid reasons given in the article.

        1. “For criminals, libertarians, and privacy freaks, the Bitcoin system allows for complete anonymity and privacy.”
          Isn’t “criminals, libertarians and privacy freaks” redundant?
          BTW, i suspect double zero is cesar.

          1. criminals, libertarians, and privacy freaks

            Sounds like the name of a band.

            1. I thought it sounded like… well, all of us.

            2. Sequel to the song Gypies, tramps and thieves?

    3. “”no Fed to stabilize the value of the currency.”‘

      We have a fed that stablizes currency value? Or is their mission to stablize it once it hits the floor?

    1. Destruction is a form of creation, and forestalling something means saving it for later. So, that sounds like 1 million private sector jobs created/saved to me.

  8. Another in a continuing series explaining why Bin Ladin may have had a point. A 30 year old “man baby”? WTF?

    http://gawker.com/5803413/stan…..rity-fraud

    1. What’s an “adult baby” except a progressive who dresses the part?

      1. a teapartier sporting depends & support socks

        1. I poop myself all the time thts how i no about dpends

          1. ^^quit thinkin about my bodily fluids^^

    2. Senator Coburn is demanding a review of his SS payments

    3. “Next time you see me on the news, it will be me in a body bag.”

      What’s the downside?

      1. That was my response. We’d still come out ahead if he was dead.

    4. Why does Sen. Tom Coburn hate babies?

    5. The comments! They burn my eyes!

      Such as: Look, the unemployment rate is nearly 9 percent. Stanley is not an employable person. Even if he decided it was time to pull himself up by his bootstraps, even if he tried really hard to be normal, he would not get a job. Would any of you hire him? Do you know anyone who would hire him?

      Sure it’s discouraging that while you’re broke and in debt and doing your best, some people get checks from the government to live like babies. But cutting them off will not accomplish anything. The government is not going to reduce your tax burden or provide better services with the hundreds of dollars saved by cutting off Stanley.

      Think of his check as economic stimulus. The government sends money to Stanley, and he spends it all on food, rent and diapers. Multiply that by the millions of unemployable people who are receiving social security money and spending it immediately — those checks are helping to keep the economy afloat. Sending money to unemployable people actually benefits everyone.

      And how badly can you really resent this guy, considering his mental state and his life? Would you really trade your life for his just to receive a few hundred dollars every month? Maybe you can’t be expected to care if this guy lives or dies, but rooting for his suicide? That shit is uncalled for. from muffincupcakes.

      It burns! It burns!

      1. “Sure it’s discouraging that while you’re broke and in debt and doing your best, some people get checks from the government to live like babies. But cutting them off will not accomplish anything. The government is not going to reduce your tax burden or provide better services with the hundreds of dollars saved by cutting off Stanley.”

        Wow. Where to even begin?

    1. I was disappoint that this isn’t the E True Hollywood Story of the Financial Crisis. 🙁

      I’ll keep checking my TEEVEE listings for that one.

  9. The CDC Has a ‘Resident evil’ plan
    http://emergency.cdc.gov/socia…..s_blog.asp

    1. Was it written by Stephen King?

      1. I’d rather it be written by Max Brooks.

        1. I’d rather it be written by Mel Brooks.

      2. I am inclined to let the Raggedy Man have the whole fucking thing at that point.

    2. I bet they have a standard form to help them plan for any possible outbreak, and it’s structured like a Mad Lib.
      In case of (adjective) (noun) attack, we will provide (synonym for “help”) to local authorities…

      So, I conclude that they also have plans for global vampire outbreaks and cataclysmic rabid woolly mammoth stampedes as well.

      1. If you kill a vampire with garlic Szechuan chicken, is it undead again in a half hour?

        1. HIYO!

        2. no that’s joeboo w the cleveland indians

    3. Are they admitting that all government plans are a joke?

      1. I don’t think so. I think it’s more embarrassing for them to NOT have a plan for any possible outbreak, no matter how silly one might appear. Or perhaps, all of their plans are essentially the same.

  10. Clearance Thomas must resign from the Court because his wife has a job. Elana Keagan will not have to even recuse herself form a case that she help prepare the defense.

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/05…..obamacare/

    1. Rules are for “them”. If you’re the Progressive Result of Millenia Of Human Moral and Intellectual Progress, you can’t be bound by the same things that bind your inferiors.

      1. If you’re the Progressive Result of Millenia Of Human Moral and Intellectual Progress, you can’t be bound by the same things that bind your inferiors.

        Oui! This is true!

      2. so the progressives are “Navigators”?

        Thousands of years of forced spice eveolution results in a strange looking sexually suggestive mouth.

    2. Clearance Thomas must resign from the Court because his wife has a job lobbying for many issues the Court ultimately decides.

      FTFY

      1. And Kagan?

        1. Kagan has the problem that I would think you are going to get when you nominate a SG, it’s hard to think of any case she shouldn’t recuse herself on for about a decade.

          1. Then I guess don’t nominate a Solicitor General next time.

            1. In other words, what applies to Mrs Thomas applies so much to Kagan as to totally disqualify her, so it must be ignored.

      2. And the provision of judicial or government ethics that imputes the activities and conflicts of the spouse onto the government employee? Citation please?

        1. Do you need a provision of ethics to consider it fishy to have a judge deciding a case that his spouse is lobbying to effect?

            1. Well, conservatives are often accused of being dogmatic literalists, but if you need a written down provision to find that fishy what can I say.

              1. Actually, I’ll agree with “fishy”. However, it’s more that “fishy” isn’t actionable.

                You wanna find this “fishy”? Go ahead. Any resulting reaction cause you happen to think this is “fishy”? Not so much.

              2. It sticks better to the end of a pitchfork when it’s written on paper.

          1. I think we have ethics rules for a reason. And we should just make rules that are not there. Further, if you impute the conflicts of the spouse to the husband, you will disqualify a whole lot of people since most couples are two income families.

            And further, lots of judges spouses are politically active. Ed Rendell’s wife sits on the 3rd Circuit. Yet no one asked her to recuse herself when her husband was a governor or the Chair of the DNC.

            And of course you haven’t said a word about Keagen’s work, which does appear to violate an actual rule not a made up one. Once again, rules only apply to the other side.

            1. “I think we have ethics rules for a reason”

              We do. it’s very important that the little boy who lives down the street who happens to be the son of a congressional staffer not be invited to a birthday party for my 2 year old. because that’s basically bribing his father.

              1. Since his dad is a hill rat, he is probably a little bastard who steal the silverware and pee on the carpet anyway.

                1. See, this is why Childrens Services should immediately seize the offspring of all congress-beings.
                  It’s for the children.

              2. Children of politicians and political staffers should be taught from an early age that their parents’ career paths are merely a step above common thieves’ by shunning them from all birthday parties. In fact, they should be given anti-invitations explicitly laying out the reasons. That’ll show ’em.

        2. did you mean this?
          Conflicting Financial Interests
          An executive branch employee is prohibited by a Federal criminal statute from participating personally and substantially in a particular Government matter that will affect his own financial interests, as well as the financial interests of –

          ?his spouse or minor child
          ?his general partner
          ?an organization in which he serves as an officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee, and
          ?a person with whom he is negotiating for or has an arrangement concerning prospective employment.
          Several kinds of financial interests are exempt from this prohibition. These include direct or imputed financial interests in securities that are worth $15,000 or less and financial interests in diversified mutual funds and unit investment trusts, regardless of their value.

          Agencies may, by supplemental regulation, prohibit or restrict the holding of certain financial interests by all or a group of agency employees. A few agencies extend such restrictions to the employee’s spouse and minor children.

          Reference: 18 U.S.C. ? 208; 5 C.F.R. ?? 2635.401-403; 5 C.F.R. Part 2640.

          that’s all Executive branch, not judges.

          For what it’s worth, Thomas’ wife being politically active on issues that crop up in supreme court cases is not a conflict of interest. If her organization filed a brief, or had a direct, traceable benefit to case–that’s a conflict.

      3. “Clearance Thomas must resign from the Court because his wife has a job lobbying for many issues the Court ultimately decides.”

        Behold the ramblings of a mental midget.

      4. And Michelle needs to be kept out of the Oval Office, using that criteria.

        Thanks, MNG!

    1. KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHN!

    2. Good thing there is no incestuous relationship between the media and government in the United States.

      1. big media, big oil, big defense, big facism…

        1. You got a point there, double nothin’?

          1. yes but its hidden by my hat.thx

            1. ^^quit thinkin about my body^^

              1. To that end, I shall tink about your soul. Your ignorant, childish soul.

          2. Oooh, I get it! It’s Jethro from “The Beverly Hills” playing a double-naught spy!

        2. you missed one.

          1. i like playing with big dildo

            1. ^^quit thinkin about my big parts^^

    3. The French media articles shows an often overlooked danger of big govt – its sheer financial mass gives it the ability to ‘influence’ actions it might not have the power to explicitly order.

      Basically, even if the govt lacks the authority to order the media to not cover something, if the govt, or govt owned entities, or entities dependent on govt spending, are your biggest advertisers, you may not want to offend them.

      1. Kinda like asking how the people can control “their” govt if 51%+ of the voters are dependent on that govt.

      2. Basically, even if the govt lacks the authority to order the media to not cover something, if the govt, or govt owned entities, or entities dependent on govt spending, are your biggest advertisers, you may not want to offend them.

        Interesting, could this be applied to, say, large corporations with “sheer financial mass?”

        1. Sure, as soon as you name a corporation w/ the same financial mass as the govt.

          1. Why must the sheer financial mass equal the governments for there to be a similar effect going on? Ones with much mass would have much effect, though perhaps not as much as entities with larger mass such as the govt.

            1. As long as the corporations have competitors there’s no problem, because the media can just solicit ads from the other guys. You don’t have that option with government as it is, by definition, a monopoly.

              1. Compare GE/NBC/MSNBC to Fox. Both big corps. Totally different take on events.

                1. That’s the dumbest fucking thing I’ve read all morning. Advertisers are advertising because they believe they gain an economic advantage through said advertising. No commercial advertiser is running an ad in the newspaper (or whatever media outlet) as a favor to the newspaper.
                  Jesus. To think I still have to explain these things.

                  1. I once knew an editor who took, well, not glee, but a certain perverse delight in taking the calls from advertisers who threatened to pull their ads. “What? You were advertising to do me a favor? Either the ads work for you or they don’t. Do your stockholders know you were throwing their money away?”

            2. LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA!

              Thanks again, sloopyinca!

            3. “Ones with much mass would have much effect, though perhaps not as much as entities with larger mass such as the govt”

              Tell us about George Soros, Minge.

              1. But… but… TEH KOCHTOPUS!!!ONE!!1!WON!!!EXCLAMAT!ON PO!NTS!!!!!!!

        2. “…if the govt, or govt owned entities, or entities dependent on govt spending, are your biggest advertisers, you may not want to offend them.”

          Except, for the most part, reporters on the federal government beat are not looking to placate advertisers, they are trying not to offend sources,

      3. The danger also arises when reporters go back and forth between the media and government jobs. Is uber douche Jay Carney’s wife Claire Shipman going to be particularly hard on her husband’s employer. Is anyone in the Washington press corps going to ruin their chances a sweet government appointment by being too hard on the government when their team is in charge?

        1. If you have many news organizations wouldn’t this take care of itself? If one reporter for one agency does bad reporting for these reasons there will be dozens of others who would scoop them.

          1. If the media were more ideologically diverse, it would. But since most reporters are leftists and much more likely to work for a Democratic administration, it is an issue.

            1. There’s plenty of diversity for reporters. Fox, the WSJ, the Washington Times, Weekly Standard, etc., plenty of jobs for a enterprising young reporter who scoops a Democratic administration.

              1. 90% of the Washington Press corps votes Democratic out of coincidence I guess.

                1. Doesn’t 90% of Washington itself vote Democratic?

                  1. “Doesn’t 90% of Washington itself vote Democratic?”

                    Yeah because they are Democrats. You don’t magically transform into a Democrat by moving to the place. Again, most reporters vote Democratic.

                    If you are not smart enough to follow the conversation, please refrain from joining in the discussion. Especially with threaded comments, posts like this just clutter the thread.

                    1. the dc press corps lives in the dc area & most werent born there.

                    2. most weren’t born there

                      ANCHOR BABIES!!

                  2. Doesn’t 90% of Washington itself vote Democratic?

                    Yep, just like 90% of dogs vote for more food in their bowl.

          2. LA!

        2. …particularly hard on her husband’s…

          You said hard on…heh heh…heh heh…mmm…yeah…

    4. Did you know that newspaper Le Figaro is owned by aerospace manufacturer Dassault? Imagine if the NYT were owned by Boeing!

      NBC and GE?

      1. THAT’S DIFFERENT

    5. …can you imagine if the NYT were owned by Boeing?
      Yeah, or, like, NBC were owned by GE?
      Maybe media companies should be explicitly owned by large manufacturing concerns. You’d know what spin to subtract from their editorials, and the journalists could stop whining about no one buying their product.

    6. Pretty good interview.
      President Clinton speaking on Obama going after Bin Laden:

      I think he concluded what I often did when I did something that was risky as president, which is, OK, you might fail by acting, you might fail by not acting. Which failure would be easier to explain?

      That’s pretty revealing. Clinton says he measured his actions by the standard of “how would you explain your actions?”

      In retrospect it fits his pattern of activity pretty well. I work with an executive who is like that. He’s always doing the thought experiment of “I could explain it this way…” before making a decision. He actually brainstorms his excuses with his people before he acts (not his actions, but his explanations for various outcomes).

      1. I can think of at least one notable example where Clinton failed to follow this pattern.

  11. Pants down for justice:

    The judge also took aim at O’Connor’s subsequent behavior inside an interview room at the South Burlington Police Department, where a police video camera recorded him pulling down Campbell’s pants to look for drugs and then duct-taping Campell’s pants to his shirt afterward.

    The video was shown to Sessions by Campbell’s public defender during a March 2 hearing while O’Connor was on the witness stand.

    “Although it is difficult to assess O’Connor’s particular motives, it is clear that, at the very least, his behavior was less than professional, which calls into question his judgments during the incident and the accuracy of his testimony,” Sessions wrote.

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress…..dyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

  12. The Obama campaign cashes in on Birtherism.

    Surely they thought ahead to make sure that the t-shirt itself came from Alabama or wherever and wasn’t made in Malaysia or, um, Indonesia. And given than one can be had for $25, there’s enough margin in there to account for American origin.

    Because if not, that’s going to be one of the biggest political gaffes in a while and it will live until at least the Wednesday after the first Monday in November 2012.

  13. North Carolina has banned rare hamburger

    1. hambeger is not rare i see it all th time in th store

      1. ^^quit thinkin about my hamburger^^

      2. Such a grand meeting of the minds shall never be witnessed again.

    2. “North Carolina has banned rare hamburger”

      Would that be hamburger made from piping plovers?

  14. From the article:

    “The birther lie thrived despite the certificate of live-birth candidate Obama posted on his website in 2008,”

    At least they’re consistent in their use of the word, “lie.”

    Because being agnostic on something and basing an opinion on all the facts available is the same thing as being knowingly deceitful… Yes?

    1. In April President Obama decried the “sideshows and carnival barkers” when finally releasing his long-form copy of his birth certificate.

      Not only is the campaign now dignifying the sideshows and carnival barkers, with this t-shirt offer they’ve joined them. Or maybe it’s as simple as Obama courting the carny vote by playing the part of one.

      1. Maybe Obama’s getting ready for another “victory lap in a clown car”.

        1. And more end-zone football-spiking.

        2. Weekend with Binny 2.

  15. The White House punishes the Boston Herald.

    Reading this, I realized that it’s not even so much the gargantuan errors in policy that bugs me about this administration any more – I kind of just accept that.

    It’s the fucking pettiness and accompanying thin skin.

    “We wanna be sure the press is being fair, and putting Mitt Romeny on the cover isn’t fair, so we’re all butt hurt…” What? You’re THE PRESIDENT! He’s barely a candidate!

    Unbecoming the office. Act like you’ve been here before, even if you haven’t. What a schmuck.

    1. He’s never known criticism before. And it stings.

      1. Actually, Carter and Clinton shared some of this tendency, too. Carter’s STILL insisting on being in the media, defending his record, etc.

        Whatever you think of the Bushes (I had lees than no use for their statist tendencies), I give them both credit for “class” in terms of riding off into the sunset after their terms and SHUTTING THE FUCK UP. You rarely hear from them, and generally it’s to hawk a book (W) or for some charitable cause (JHWB + Clinton + Haiti). They also never whined about the press when they were in office.

        Obama – unable to STFU and “be above it all”. What a tool.

    2. It is a boon for the Herald. Does BO own stock in them?

      1. I bet we’ve stumbled onto a Kochtopussian Kahnspeeruhsee!!

        1. The next Bond film should be named Kochtopussy.

    3. It’s the fucking pettiness and accompanying thin skin.

      I agree with this 100%.

      And what really makes it burn is the smug condescension that comes with it. Like they’re just doing it for fun and playing games with people who disagree with them because any who’s reasonable already agrees with whatever they have to say and everyone else doesn’t deserve respect.

      1. smug condescension

        ^^this^^ Good add

        1. They can be as smug as they want. As soon as a pundit calls them on it, the race card flies.

          They can’t lose!

    4. “fucking pettiness and accompanying thin skin”

      It’s bush league. i won’t say it’s unique to this administration, but they’ve taken it to whole new levels.

    5. Obama is by far the most cognizant of the media of all Presidents. Before him it was Clinton – but Clinton used the media like Reagan, only with more “slick Willie” style (and plenty of chutzpah).

      Obama clearly has views of the media shaped in studies of dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. I guess we should have know this was coming given his campaign and particularly the staging of his acceptance speech. While Clinton covertly punished the media for getting out of line (e.g. Christiane Amanpour), the Obama team doesn’t even try to hide it. They dole out interviews like Papal favors to reward “correct” behavior.

      The media is so cowed that they even follow his agenda for what topics to cover. The White house comes out and says “this week we are focusing on education!” and all week long you get stories that tie in to the education theme.

      They are not full-on government propaganda machines yet, but it isn’t all that distinct from propaganda either. And with his overt manipulation of the press, it is clear that he doesn’t view state-run media as a bad thing.

    6. Seriously, 90% of the media worships at this creep’s feet, and it’s not enough for him. What a fucking thin-skinned jackass.

    7. This guy acts more and more like Nixon every fucking day.

      Oh, for another Watergate.

  16. Steven Colbert gets an education in free speech.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..on_LEADTop

    1. Colbert is a Progressive and thus smarter than both of us. He doesn’t need lessons in anything.

    2. Speaking of smug condescension.

    3. I thought this was hilarious when I read it earlier this morning, but it’s not clear if the dude actually gets it or if he’s totally clueless about the bigger picture.

      You kind of get the impression that he thinks it’s TOTALLY UNFAIR! that he’s having to jump through these hoops (because he’s just a comedian, natch) but that he’s perfectly fine with the same rules applying to everyone else.

      After all, comedic value > economic activity.

      1. I don’t think he would have any problem with this process and these rules applying to and depriving a lesser person of free speech rights.

        1. Yeah… and something that came to mind to me as well is that many of the people who support this kind of regulation are the same ones who support corporate taxation as some kind of bottomless well that has no adverse consequences.

          And not to get too deep into the psychoanalysis, but I think it speaks to a deeper mindset of pessimism – that corporations are just permanent inhuman leviathanic (new word yay!) entities that can only be controlled by an even bigger gigantic inhuman entity.

          It’s almost a juvenile and self-deprecating mindset when you get down to it.

          1. I think part of it is guilt. Let’s face it, you won fate’s lottery by being born in the US rather than in some third world slum. I think a lot of people loath themselves and the society they live in out of guilt. That also explains why celebrities, people who make millions more by luck than almost anyone else, tend to be such leftists.

            1. ^^THIS^^

          2. Behold the mind of MNG.

    4. colbert got the lesson that money is the ONLY free speech

      1. Not exactly.

      2. “money is the only free speech”

        No sense of the irony in that at all, right Urine?

        Thanks for wasting bytes and using up oxygen that could be breathed by sentient beings.

    5. As the Supreme Court noted in Citizens United, federal laws have created “71 distinct entities” that “are subject to different rules for 33 different types of political speech.” The FEC has adopted 568 pages of regulations and thousands of pages of explanations and opinions on what the laws mean.

      It’s a good thing that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or this stuff could be really convoluted.

  17. In China, some new cities are ghost towns.

    http://www.breitbart.com/artic….._article=1

    1. This can’t be true. They have trains. What about the trains?

      1. Ghost trains are ALWAYS on time.

    2. Al-Jazeera had an interesting segment on this in late ’09.

        1. I have located Qiblah from where I live before and determined that I just have to face the nearby KFC.

          1. For me, it’s Hua Ji Pork Chop Fast Food on Canal Street.

    3. Also, I might as well post these, even though they’re also less new. I kinda gleaned what I wanted to from China’s real estate buildout awhile back and figured no new info would move the needle on my opinion (which is that it’s massive malinvestment).

      Zero Hedge on forced demolition of new buildings – Remember, if you build a building, destroy it, and rebuild it, your GDP more than doubles versus just building it.

      Hedge fund manager Hugh Hendry visits completely empty buildings

    4. In Russia,ghost towns….wait, this isn’t going to work…

    5. Where is “The Truth” to deny these false allegations?!!?!

  18. Lagarde funding scandal threatens ruling party’s ‘golden girl’

    http://www.france24.com/en/201…..or-france#

  19. CDC Warns Public to Prepare for ‘Zombie Apocalypse’

    http://www.foxnews.com/health/…..z1Mnz0KO2J

    1. There is something pathetic about being the most evil man in the world but living in a dump of a house with three nagging wives, a bad porn collection and worrying about getting a supply of Just for Men to keep your beard from being grey in you next video. Sad

      1. Yeah, kinda like dragging Gargamel out of his house and realizing how pathetic he really is; just him, and his cat, and his obsessive hatred. Then shooting him in the face.

        1. We smurfed him up good.

  20. Campaign-finance laws are so complicated that few can navigate them successfully and speak during elections?which is what the First Amendment is supposed to protect the point.

  21. many of the people who support this kind of regulation are the same ones who support corporate taxation as some kind of bottomless well that has no adverse consequences.

    “Dude, it’s a goose! And get this: the best part? It lays GOLDEN EGGS!”

    “Awesome. Let’s eat it.”

    1. Mmmmmmm, faux gras.

    2. Cut it open and get all of them at once!

  22. It would be interesting post-rapture to see politicians try to cling to their authority. If they get taken to heaven then there will be a power vacuum among people with nothing to lose. If they do not it will be clear (to everybody, for once)that they are not worthy of the power they hold.

    1. No more worthy than anyone else who was left behind.

      1. Yeah, exactly. They won’t even be able to pretend otherwise.

      2. How many Hit & Run posters do you suppose will be raptured to Heaven this weekend? One way or the other, I think we’ll all be here come Monday!

        1. Hey!

    2. It is better to rule in hell, than serve in heaven.

      1. But wherefore let we then our faithful friends,
        Th’ associates and copartners of our loss
        Lye thus astonisht on th’ oblivious Pool,
        And call them not to share with us their part
        In this unhappy Mansion, or once more
        With rallied Arms to try what may be yet
        Regaind in Heav’n, or what more lost in Hell?

        1. Funny how Milton, a devout Christian, managed to make Satan a pretty interesting and charming guy.

          1. I always had the feeling that the reader was supposed to identify him with Oliver Cromwell. I should spend today reading about the English Civil War instead of working.

            1. Milton was a roundhead wasn’t he?

              1. Yeah, I’ve heard him described as Cromwell’s pet poet.

            2. I am on a French Revolution kick lately. Google books is the devil.

              1. Just finished a Modern Scholar CD course on the French Revolution: “Liberty and Its Price: Understanding the French Revolution.” Pretty good, I thought.

          2. Don’t write this down, but I find Milton probably as boring as you find Milton. Mrs. Milton found him boring too. He’s a little bit long-winded, he doesn’t translate very well into our generation, and his jokes are terrible.

            1. Could I buy some pot from you?

            2. Animal House? It’s been a while, but I can see Prof. Oddjob saying that.

      2. Power over others is all that matters to them. And, in the Golden Goose analogy, they don’t understand why the goose lays golden eggs, so they’re surprised when it doesn’t after starving it and beating it with a stick.

  23. If anybody cares, here’s the applicable language on Kagan recusing herself, from the

    A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:. . .

    the judge has served in governmental employment and in that capacity participated as a judge (in a previous judicial position), counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.

    Seems pretty clear to me. She should recuse. The “appearance of impartiality” stakes are even higher because of the high profile of the case.

    1. There is no way around it. Of course this is the same administration that claims that the War Powers Act doesn’t apply when the military is under NATO command. So they will no doubt claim the indefensible. I would hope that the members of the Court Keagan included would have enough respect for the institution not to allow her to sit for the case.

      1. I heard a snippet of an infuriating discussion on NPR this morning. Money quote “Oh, please. Don’t give me the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act is a joke and everyone knows it. The constitution has been dead on this since the atomic bomb, and everyone knows it. The War Powers Act was a joke when they passed it and it is still a joke. …. what are they gonna do? Send some DC cop up to the White House to write the President a ticket? Please… Shut up about the War Powers Act.”

        Wow. This from our “impartial news analyst” on the “unbiased people’s network”.

        They also ridiculed Rand Paul for trying to do something to get a resolution passed authorizing the Libyan action and opined that he should also just shut up. “What does he thing he’s doing?”

        I wish I was paying enough attention to remember which show it was. Google doesn’t have the transcript up yet, or I’d post a link.

        The callous disregard for the constitution was stunning. And the magnitude of the “team blue” tunnel vision was truly remarkable, coming from a progressive voice as it did. The activists from the late 60’s/early 70’s who pushed the WPA to reign in that evil Nixon would be spinning in their graves… if they were actually dead. But since they are the ones who are running the show right now and don’t seem to have a problem with any of this… well, maybe it’s one of those pod-people situations?

        1. At least Bush thought he needed AUMFs.

          The current leadership of the Democratic party may be the worst they’ve ever had. They’re openly contemptuous of any concept of limited government, have lurched even further away from American free market principles, and seem, on top of it all, totally inept at anything other than running for office.

          The GOP may be a close second on the awfulness scale, but the gap is definitely widening. Unfortunately, the latest expansions of government power will likely be used to the utmost when the GOP takes back control of the federal government in 2012.

          1. Yeah, the Republicans are manifestly worse than any US political party that existed pre-2000. And the Dems are astoundingly worse than the Republicans. Thats a pretty special achievement.

            Neither party seems particularly constrained by the constitution or by the laws enacted under the constitution, but at least Bush II jumped through the legal hoops while expanding the state and violating constitutional limits on government power.

            Now they’ve not only abandoned the pretext of following the constitution, they openly mock the notion of constitutional government. And “they” in this case includes the Supreme Court as a group – which is pretty scary since they are the last gatekeeper for constitutional authority.

            1. Everyone in government is committed to one, unifying principle: Expanding their power to do stuff.

              1. Oh yeah. But the part that your missing is that the citizens demand it. People, not all of course, want government to be the solution. Maybe it gives them someone else to blame when things don’t get done.

                1. I’m commenting on Pro’s comment, not Cyto’s.

        2. they adhere to the articles of confederation

    2. Exactly when was it when you realized you had a deep seated hatred for frumpy lesbians who refuse to come out of the closet?

  24. Sorry, that’s from the Code of Conduct for US Judges, hier:

    http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer…..A-Ch02.pdf

  25. http://www.boston.com/news/pol….._a_bl.html

    The hard left starts to remember that Obama is half white.

  26. “Ha ha ha! Diplomatic immunity!”
    *BLAM!*
    “Has just been revoked!”

    1. I think he is going to do some serious time over this. His only hope is to get bail and pull a full Polanski.

  27. Just think of all the job opportunities there will be next week. The Rapture just might be the best cure for our unemployment situation yet. Not to mention the housing market and used car market suddenly being flooded with available products. This could be the economic lift we’ve been waiting for. Of course you know Obama will take credit for it but I’d be OK with that.

    1. You forgot about the job opportunities that will come when Obama forms his army to fight against God on the fields of Armageddon.

      1. I’m moving to Canada if that happens.

  28. Whole thing sounds kinda crazy when you think about it.

    http://www.internet-privacy.at.tc

  29. This from our “impartial news analyst” on the “unbiased people’s network”.

    Did you think the market could/would provide that sort of insight?

  30. “Egypt itself sinks deeper into counterrevolution.”

    Who was the idiot on Morning Joe that insisted the whole Egypt thing “went pretty well”?

  31. The callous disregard for the constitution was stunning.

    I was just talking to somebody last night who used the term “Constitutionalist” as an epithet.

    “How dare those crazy bastards think the Constitution gives them the right to be left alone? That’s just sick.”

    1. so quit talkin. jeesch

  32. Who was the idiot on Morning Joe

    That doesn’t exactly narrow the field.

    1. Yes, I see your point…

      I beleive it was Scarboroughs co-host, Mika Brzenzski – going to try and find the clip. I think it was an interview with Michael Schauer, and he was pointing out that revolutions like that tend to end poorly.

    2. Got it. It was an interview with Niall Ferguson.

      Worth watchin again.

  33. I just can’t take MNG today. I have only made through the half way point in the comments. If I missed something funny or of value plase illuminate.

    1. Walk towards the LA! Move into the LA!

  34. I sometimes flip up from CNBC to Morning Joe, just to torture myself.
    What useful purpose does Mika Whosis serve? She has nothing insightful to contribute, she’s not particularly good-looking, all she does is sit there with a placid bovine expression on her face. Occasionally, she looks over at Scarborough like he’s her brother putting raisins up his nose.

    1. I thought her role was to parrot the talkng points the WH sends to her blackberry while she’s on the air.

      At least that’s what she said her job is.

  35. The latest from Reason.tv: “The Guatemalan Telecommunications Miracle.”

    Silly me. For a second or two I thought Guatemalans might have invented an improved cell phone and opened a factory to build them, or something along those lines. But it turns out that the “miracle” is that Guatemalans have more cell phones now than ever before – just like everywhere else.

  36. “It is not the first time West has raised questions about Obama. Last year, during an interview with NPR, he said he wished the president were more “Martin Luther King-like.””

    DEAD???

    1. Disclaimer:

      I hope that Mr. Obama live a long and useful life.

      1. He’d better get started on that second bit; he’s batting less than .000 at the moment.

  37. “The minor, whose death sentence is illegal under Egyptian law, is just one of as many as 20,000 Egyptians who have faced military tribunals since late January, when the Army took on an expanded role in securing and governing Egypt. Military courts have been used almost exclusively for criminal cases in Egypt since then, essentially replacing the civil justice system.”

    “The exception now is former leaders like Interior Minister Habib Al Adly, who was tried in a civil court and therefore could choose his lawyer and prepare a defense.”

    So much for the rising tide of freedom in Egypt :/

    Curious lack of “condemnation” from the White House, even though this is a more brutal justice system than Mubarak’s

    1. The Administration plans to wait, patiently, for the tide of freedom to rise in Egypt, or at least until we see if this story gets traction in the media and a poll can be taken to tell us which side of the fence we need to come down on.

      BTW, it’s Bush’s fault, LOL.

    2. “”So much for the rising tide of freedom in Egypt :/”‘

      I never saw one coming. From day one I didn’t think it would turn out well.

  38. “MNG|5.19.11 @ 8:39AM|#
    That’s a good point (and one that should be remembered in comparisons of public and private sector employees, among other things).

    Of course a feminist could reply that if we found the disparity were due to genders getting very different degrees the question then is, why do women tend to get degrees in lower paying fields than men, and what can be done about that?”

    Off the top of my head:

    1. Such fields offer more flexible working enviroments, more suitable for someone who is looking to get pregnant and have children.
    a. Women may limit their job search to areas where their boyfriend/fiance/husband already has a job (as he’ll be the primary breadwinner while she takes time out from career to have children) which limits her prospects.
    2. Such field of less dangerous working enviroments. Women are known to be more risk adverse than men.

    What can be done about it? Until a significant number of women do not make career decisions around pregnancy and child rearing, nothing. And there’s is nothing you or the government should do to force women as a group to prioritize their lives to your preferences.

  39. I like this blog,thanks for you sharing.

  40. Now they’ve not only abandoned the pretext of following the constitution, they openly mock the notion of constitutional government. And “they” in this case includes the Supreme Court as a group – which is pretty scary since they are the last gatekeeper for constitutional authority.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.