[PantherLotus]

I am trying to base my belief in reality. If women are getting paid less mainly because of choices they make in the workplace, a lack of higher-end masters and doctorates, less hours worked per week/year, and so on. Then the issue isn't a serious one in that field that merits a hard look. I don't believe that those things are always the issue, though. I am sure that some of it has to do with workplace discrimination and a lack of seniority (due to enforced stereotypes that prevent them from working their way up the ladder in many fields), and that is what needs to be addressed.

The study accounts for education, AB. Please follow along. These are direct comparisons that take education, field of study, discipline, experience, and careers into account.

[AlteredBeast]

The study accounts for education, AB. Please follow along. These are direct comparisons that take education, field of study, discipline, experience, and careers into account.

Can you link me to the data that shows these demographics breakdowns?

And cut the condescending attitude. I am not arguing with you, I am just interested to see how things stack up.

[VanMardigan]

The study accounts for education, AB. Please follow along. These are direct comparisons that take education, field of study, discipline, experience, and careers into account.

If you're a student, you can view a lot of other studies and articles that discuss the same things, but delve into specific industries. Its crazy, I'm reading an article now about the pay gap in the hotel and catering industry, which is dominated by women and still has a pay gap when you account for education, experience, etc.

Can't link to these because they are research journals, but if you are a student, a cursory search for "women, men, pay" will yield a ton of papers covering all angles of the disparity in pay.

[AlteredBeast]

If you're a student, you can view a lot of other studies and articles that discuss the same things, but delve into specific industries. Its crazy, I'm reading an article now about the pay gap in the hotel and catering industry, which is dominated by women and still has a pay gap when you account for education, experience, etc. Can't link to these because they are research journals, but if you are a student, a cursory search for "women, men, pay" will yield a ton of papers covering all angles of the disparity in pay.

Is this available through Lexus Nexus or ERIC? I would love to delve through this stuff.

[VanMardigan]

I'm using a multi-database tool called Thoreau. ERIC will yield some stuff, but specific to education, which isn't broad enough. Should still suffice to get you started since all articles will likely talk about other relevant research and probably provide stats as well.

[AlteredBeast]

I'm using a multi-database tool called Thoreau. ERIC will yield some stuff, but specific to education, which isn't broad enough. Should still suffice to get you started since all articles will likely talk about other relevant research and probably provide stats as well.

I appreciate the helpful response. Courtesy is so much better than asshole responses. :)

[Chichikov]

So cracked (I know, I know) has his article that might relevant to this thread -

5 Ways to Spot a B.S. Political Story in Under 10 Seconds

#5. The Headline Contains the Word "Gaffe"
#4. The Headline Ends in a Question Mark
#3. The Headline Contains the Word "Blasts"
#2. The Headline Is About a "Lawmaker" Saying Something Stupid
#1. The Headline Includes the Phrase "Blow To"

I agree wholeheartedly.
Well written too.

[PantherLotus]

Can you link me to the data that shows these demographics breakdowns? And cut the condescending attitude. I am not arguing with you, I am just interested to see how things stack up.

Don't pretend you haven't been a complete cunt to me throughout this thread. Just because I don't respond doesn't mean I'm not reading.

[AlteredBeast]

Don't pretend you haven't been a complete cunt to me throughout this thread. Just because I don't respond doesn't mean I'm not reading.

The difference being that I meant no offense, while you obviously do. Well done bringing informed discussion the thread rather than merely calling everybody idiots who disagree or who merely wish to see more information.

[MrPliskin]

I appreciate the helpful response. Courtesy is so much better than asshole responses. :)

You don't think suggesting that everyone's beliefs are based in fantasy is an asshole response? You literally said "I try to base my beliefs in reality", suggesting others don't. Also, your short responses of "data data data" dismissing any discussion is equally as condescending. Just saying.

[Opiate]

You don't think suggesting that everyone's beliefs are based in fantasy is an asshole response? You literally said "I try to base my beliefs in reality", suggesting others don't. Also, your short responses of "data data data" dismissing any discussion is equally as condescending. Just saying.

I don't agree. He asked for statistical data -- which is the best form of evidence -- and got a response with no data. He then repeated his request for data more emphatically ("data data data") and got a hostile response. He asked, again, for data, and got another hostile response.

To be quite frank, in most cases when I am confronted by someone who behaves in such a manner, I assume they don't actually have the evidence, or the evidence is not on their side after all. In this situation it didn't happen to be the case, but that's always my suspicion when people state things as facts and then become overtly hostile when asked to support those facts with citations and evidence.

[AlteredBeast]

You don't think suggesting that everyone's beliefs are based in fantasy is an asshole response? You literally said "I try to base my beliefs in reality", suggesting others don't. Also, your short responses of "data data data" dismissing any discussion is equally as condescending. Just saying.

Just my quest for knowledge. Like I said before, I don't disbelieve that there is discrimination going on, but I would like to know specifics to the field, the reasoning behind it, and what can be done.

Everyone slapping themselves on the back and saying "wage gap!" doesn't help anything, but if we can use data and demographics to determine where the problem areas are, we can seek to help and improve those areas. I always use informed statistics to improve my positions. Simply knowing something isn't enough. Why is better.

[GhaleonEB]

Josh Marshall has a good take on the way the Obama administration has - unexpectedly - gone on the offense against Romney RE: Bin Laden.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive....php?ref=fpblg

[balladofwindfishes]

I've seen this going around Facebook


Is that actually a real quote? Where did it come from?

Because it's hilarious.

[Arde5643]

Oh shit, Romney's the real xsibit?

[cartoon_soldier]

Josh Marshall has a good take on the way the Obama administration has - unexpectedly - gone on the offense against Romney RE: Bin Laden. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive....php?ref=fpblg

Must Read:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...avid-corn.html

It was entirely possible—arguably probable—that Obama might never recover from such a failure. So much had to go exactly right for the raid to succeed; one accident or screwup (well beyond Obama’s control) could sink the operation—and his presidency. Obama was on the verge of taking the ultimate political risk. It was time to decide. Obama asked his national security team for their individual recommendations. Vice President Joe Biden and Gates each counseled waiting for more intelligence. “Don’t go,” the vice president said. Several of the participants still opted for a missile strike. Panetta and the president’s chief counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, backed the helicopter assault. There was no consensus. The raid was not supported by a majority—and Obama’s most experienced advisers, his vice president and defense secretary, were wary of proceeding with this mission.

Romney's response today was he would have said Yes to the mission to, that even Jimmy Carter would have said yes.

[Atilac]

There was also some stupid idea about the 'state' getting representation as opposed to the people (who are represented by the House) . . . and hence each state getting an equal 2 Senators each. But that turns out to just be fucking stupid. It just ends up as two separate bodies that each vote on things wherein one has relatively proportional representation and the other massively over-represents the views of very small states and large rural areas. The senate is shit. And I don't mind the filibuster so much . . . just the massively undemocratic nature of the senate.

Which was intended

[AlteredBeast]

Which was intended

It is definitely working with the filibuster in place. :(

[empty vessel]

Which was intended

Which shouldn't be mistaken for an argument that it is good. (Also, the founders intended the Senate to be a simple majoritarian institution, not one requiring super majorities, so if we're equating intentions to goodness....)

[PhoenixPause]

Anyone have contact info forPantherLotus? I'm assuming he's perm'd

[Flying_Phoenix]

Christ people. If you disagree with AlteredBeast than just PM him information like I did...

Also the part about the senate being to represent the little guy is kind of dumb. I mean with few exceptions most of the time it is the small states that fuck up the decisions in the country.

[Atilac]

Madison specifically mentions class and the need to protect the wealthy from the masses. Yes, this is a fear about "popular representation," but because of the threat it represents to the landed gentry: http://books.google.com/books?id=nFY...page&q&f=false (Also, keep in mind that the founders did not fear the legislative branch nearly as much as the executive branch--King George. They very intentionally created a very powerful Congress and a weak, albeit not impotent, president.)

You couldn't be more wrong, the founders original protagonist was Parliament, they pleaded for the king to step in and deliver relief and justice. The founders turned on the king when it became apparent he wouldn't interfere, Jefferson's declaration was intended to do that as was the writings of Thomas Paine.

On to the founders views of the legislative branch I would direct you to federalist paper 48
"The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex." - James Madison.

You're placing your feelings and cynical views into the mindset of the founders, the purpose of the senate is to muzzle tyranny and prevent monistic thought, it wasn't created merely to protect the landed wealthy interests.

If your interested in Madison's views of the senate, read federalist paper 62.

[Dave Inc.]

I remember hearing a senator discussing the role of the senate on some NPR show a while back and the way he described it made a good amount of sense. The senate is there to resist change to stall ideas that might be popular but aren't yet well founded or researched. Ultimately, though, a popular idea that gains enough momentum where even the most resistant senator won't risk turning it down will make it through.

It's a great ideal to strive for but I don't think anyone believes that the senate behaves that way in reality.

[Flying_Phoenix]

^^^The senate was just merely a bargaining right to get other states to join the United States.

[Atilac]

Which shouldn't be mistaken for an argument that it is good. (Also, the founders intended the Senate to be a simple majoritarian institution, not one requiring super majorities, so if we're equating intentions to goodness....)

No, the senate is meant to be more deliberative and to prevent the aspirations of the momentary majority.
George Washington referred to it as "the saucer to cool the houses tea".

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I've seen this going around Facebook Is that actually a real quote? Where did it come from? Because it's hilarious.

No, it's not an actual quote. It was someone paraphrasing a stump speech he gave.

[Invisible_Insane]

You couldn't be more wrong, the founders original protagonist was Parliament, they pleaded for the king to step in and deliver relief and justice. The founders turned on the king when it became apparent he wouldn't interfere, Jefferson's declaration was intended to do that as was the writings of Thomas Paine. On to the founders views of the legislative branch I would direct you to federalist paper 48 "The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex." - James Madison. You're placing your feelings and cynical views into the mindset of the founders, the purpose of the senate is to muzzle tyranny and prevent monistic thought, it wasn't created merely to protect the landed wealthy interests. If your interested in Madison's views of the senate, read federalist paper 62.

Whose tyranny?

No, the senate is meant to be more deliberative and to prevent the aspirations of the momentary majority. George Washington referred to it as "the saucer to cool the houses tea".

...that's not a response to what he said at all. That a supermajority is required to advance most legislation is fairly recent phenomenon, and it is certainly not how the founders intended the Senate to function. Not that I really care all that much what they intended, frankly.

[Flying_Phoenix]

Whose tyranny?

The big states.

[Invisible_Insane]

The big states.

See where this is going?

[GhaleonEB]

Must Read: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...avid-corn.html Romney's response today was he would have said Yes to the mission to, that even Jimmy Carter would have said yes.

Thanks for the link, that was a great read. Great insight into Obama's methodical deliberation process.

his is one of those issues where Romeny's previous position was absolutely crystal clear - he reamed Obama for saying he'd go into Pakistan if they thought Osama was there. He's done a clean reversal, even more so than on the auto bailout. He's running such a sad campaign; a better man would give the president credit for the call and the success and then argue he's have done the same, rather than try to minimize it. It's all just so petty.

No, the senate is meant to be more deliberative and to prevent the aspirations of the momentary majority. George Washington referred to it as "the saucer to cool the houses tea".

The filibuster was not part of the Senate design. It emerged much later, as part of an (accidental) consequence of updating Senate rules. Rules that can be further updated to remove it once again.

[Tim-E]

Thanks for the link, that was a great read. Great insight into Obama's methodical deliberation process. This is one of those issues where Romeny's previous position was absolutely crystal clear - he reamed Obama for saying he'd go into Pakistan if they thought Obama was there. He's done a clean reversal, even more so than on the auto bailout. He's running such a sad campaign; a better man would give the president credit for the call and the success and then argue he's have done the same, rather than try to minimize it. It's all just so petty.

I seriously doubt anyone would care if Romney would just give the president credit and have that be the end of it. Instead he has to attempt to pick another losing battle with Obama for the sole purpose of being against him.

[cartoon_soldier]

Thanks for the link, that was a great read. Great insight into Obama's methodical deliberation process. This is one of those issues where Romeny's previous position was absolutely crystal clear - he reamed Obama for saying he'd go into Pakistan if they thought Obama was there. He's done a clean reversal, even more so than on the auto bailout. He's running such a sad campaign; a better man would give the president credit for the call and the success and then argue he's have done the same, rather than try to minimize it. It's all just so petty.

Come on Man...lol

Actually, I believe there is a video of Romney repeatedly calling Osama Obama out there. And...



Actually that sign's pretty catchy

[empty vessel]

You couldn't be more wrong, the founders original protagonist was Parliament, they pleaded for the king to step in and deliver relief and justice. The founders turned on the king when it became apparent he wouldn't interfere, Jefferson's declaration was intended to do that as was the writings of Thomas Paine. On to the founders views of the legislative branch I would direct you to federalist paper 48 "The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex." - James Madison. You're placing your feelings and cynical views into the mindset of the founders, the purpose of the senate is to muzzle tyranny and prevent monistic thought, it wasn't created merely to protect the landed wealthy interests. If your interested in Madison's views of the senate, read federalist paper 62.

I'm not remotely wrong. With few exceptions (e.g., Alexander Hamilton), your contention that the founders feared the legislative branch more than the executive is preposterous and without any historical support. Federalist 48 is about "checks and balances," and the benefits thereof. You would do well to understand the Federalist Papers rather than merely pulling out isolated sentences. It is, of course, historically clear that following the American revolution, the various state governments (independent nations) greatly diminished (practically to the point of non-existence in some cases) executive authority and fully empowered their legislatures. It is this that Madison is remarking upon, in the context of the necessity of checks and balances to prevent tyranny generally:

Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power? This is the security which appears to have been principally relied on by the compilers of most of the American constitutions. But experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government. The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.

While Madison is arguing in defense of a stronger executive, this is only necessary in the first place because of how much power had been taken from the branch and placed in the hands of fully empowered legislatures in the various state constitutions and Articles of Confederation (which had no executive at all--even the idea of a council appointed by Congress had been rejected). So while it might be correct to say that Madison argued for a stronger executive, this was not relative to the British monarchy but to the reaction to it by the new states. Because there remained intense fear of executive power, Madison had to explain that there could be benefits in placing some power in an independent executive. The executive branch proposed by the Constitution was still incredibly weak by any standard other than not having one at all.

Madison's argument is itself revealing. The way that he tries to argue that a legislature should not be completely unchecked by any other branch is by equating a fully-empowered legislature to a powerful executive:

The founders of our republics have so much merit for the wisdom which they have displayed, that no task can be less pleasing than that of pointing out the errors into which they have fallen. A respect for truth, however, obliges us to remark, that they seem never for a moment to have turned their eyes from the danger to liberty from the overgrown and all-grasping prerogative of an hereditary magistrate, supported and fortified by an hereditary branch of the legislative authority. They seem never to have recollected the danger from legislative usurpations, which, by assembling all power in the same hands, must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive usurpations.

So, as you can see, it is executive usurpation that is the primary concern, and Madison had his work cut out for him merely to explain the benefits of placing even any semblance of real power in that branch. This was the point of Federalist 48: to explain the enhanced executive power contained in the proposed constitution, but enhanced relative to nothing. You cannot turn this argument into one that the founders (and Americans generally) were somehow pro-executive and anti-legislative. Federalist 48 itself disproves that contention. (Plus, you may be the first person I have ever seen even attempt to make it.)

No, the senate is meant to be more deliberative and to prevent the aspirations of the momentary majority. George Washington referred to it as "the saucer to cool the houses tea".

Again, saying that something was intended is not an argument that it is good. And, again, intending that something be "more deliberative" is not intending that it be supermajoritarian. Plus, we've already established that Madison viewed the Senate to be "more deliberative" in the sense of acting to protect the opulent minority from "too much" popular democracy.

[GhaleonEB]

Come on Man...lol[/spoiler]

Dammit.

Edit:

Mitt Romney, Feb 4, 2012: “The president tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse. I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.” Eric Fehrnstrom, senior adviser to the Romney campaign, April 30, 2012: Romney’s “position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed. I know it infuriates them to hear that. The only economic success that President Obama has had is because he followed Mitt Romney’s advice.”

Good grief.

[Cyan]

Must Read: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...avid-corn.html Romney's response today was he would have said Yes to the mission to, that even Jimmy Carter would have said yes.

"Even Jimmy Carter," eesh. I mean I know they're just evoking the standard "Jimmy Carter's a weenie" thing, but in context of where that perception actually arose from, it's pretty dumb.

[Kosmo]

Romney’s “position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed. I know it infuriates them to hear that. The only economic success that President Obama has had is because he followed Mitt Romney’s advice.”

What's not true about this? It did play out exactly how Romney suggested. You act like the industry would have disappeared - if so, why hasn't that happened with all the airlines that have filed bankruptcy over the last 20 years?

The only difference would have been less clout with the UAW for Obama.

[Cyan]

Good grief.

Hmm. Risky ploy, given that the one time Obama actually did follow Mittens, the GOP flipped its collective frying pan helmet.

[sc0la]

Come on Man...lol Actually, I believe there is a video of Romney repeatedly calling Osama Obama out there. And... Actually that sign's pretty catchy

Billy's Baby-Mama would be better

[Dax01]

What's not true about this? It did play out exactly how Romney suggested. You act like the industry would have disappeared - if so, why hasn't that happened with all the airlines that have filed bankruptcy over the last 20 years? The only difference would have been less clout with the UAW for Obama.

FAKE EDIT: I was going to type up a reply, but then I realized there was no point.

[Invisible_Insane]

FAKE EDIT: I was going to type up a reply, but then I realized there was no point.

something something credit markets

I can't be bothered trying either.

[Atilac]

You cannot turn this argument into one that the founders (and Americans generally) were somehow pro-executive and anti-legislative. Federalist 48 itself disproves that contention. (Plus, you may be the first person I have ever seen even attempt to make it.)

At no point did I state the founders (especially Americans in general) were pro-executive and anti-legislator, I merely pointed out the founders intentions as they are written in the Federalist papers. Of having a divided government to separate powers to prevent tyranny.

Again, saying that something was intended is not an argument that it is good.

It sure is when the original question was "why does the senate exist?". It exists because the founders feared an all power legislator, which James Madison describes as an "impetuous vortex".

[PhoenixPause]

What's not true about this? It did play out exactly how Romney suggested. You act like the industry would have disappeared - if so, why hasn't that happened with all the airlines that have filed bankruptcy over the last 20 years? The only difference would have been less clout with the UAW for Obama.

Impressive revisionist history. First 911 didn't happen on Bush's watch, now the credit/finance market was perfectly healthy enough for someone to fix the auto industry.

Not even Rick Snyder believes that

[AlteredBeast]

Impressive revisionist history. First 911 didn't happen on Bush's watch, now the credit/finance market was perfectly healthy enough for someone to fix the auto industry. Not even Rick Snyder believes that

Who said that 9/11 didn't happen under Bush's watch? that is pretty damn silly.

[GhaleonEB]

What's not true about this? It did play out exactly how Romney suggested. You act like the industry would have disappeared - if so, why hasn't that happened with all the airlines that have filed bankruptcy over the last 20 years? The only difference would have been less clout with the UAW for Obama.

There are two quotes there. One is from Romney saying Obama's intervention made things worse.

The second quote is from a Romney campaign advisor arguing that Obama did exactly what Romney said. Put the two together for a moment, and try to square them.

This sets aside the fact that Romney's advice was explicit: managed bankruptcy, but no government backstops for the companies. Obama's team went with a managed bankruptcy, but provided all the funding for them, to much criticism. But without doing that, the companies would have gone under, because private financing did not exist for them.

Had Obama's team followed Romney's advice, GM and Chrysler would have gone under. But they didn't. And now Romney's campaign is simultaneously criticizing Obama for doing what he did (he made things worse!) while taking credit for the success (he followed Mitt's lead!).

History shows all this will be lost on you, but there you go.

[speculawyer]

"Even Jimmy Carter," eesh. I mean I know they're just evoking the standard "Jimmy Carter's a weenie" thing, but in context of where that perception actually arose from, it's pretty dumb.

Yeah, such a bullshit revisionist history. Jimmy Carter is painted as this wuss. But the reality is that he is the namesake of the "The Carter Doctrine" which basically says "If you mess with our oil supply in the mid-East we will fuck you up."

And Jimmy Carter approved the Iranian hostage rescue mission which was obviously very risky and ended up as a huge disaster.

[AlteredBeast]

Yeah, such a bullshit revisionist history. Jimmy Carter is painted as this wuss. But the reality is that he is the namesake of the "The Carter Doctrine" which basically says "If you mess with our oil supply in the mid-East we will fuck you up." And Jimmy Carter approved the Iranian hostage rescue mission which was obviously very risky and ended up as a huge disaster.

Maybe he meant it as a more even-keeled backhanded comment, like "Even Carter after his failed Iran hostage mission would have done it."

...maybe :P

[thekad]

Who said that 9/11 didn't happen under Bush's watch? that is pretty damn silly.

"There have been no terrorist attacks on American soil under Bush" was actually said by some Fox News talking head.

[AlteredBeast]

"There have been no terrorist attacks on American soil under Bush" was actually said by some Fox News talking head.

Wow. Who the hell was that? Some Dick Morris-level nonsense right there.

[thekad]

http://articles.businessinsider.com/...n-leader-obama

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34779020...us-under-bush/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_370393.html

[zargle]

http://articles.businessinsider.com/...n-leader-obama http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34779020...us-under-bush/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_370393.html

I remember when Giuliani said it, because i just stared at the screen thinking, "9/11 was essentially the crux of your presidential campaign! What are you talking about?"