|
O/T: A Milestone
Strictly a non wood working post.
The USA achieved a milestone tonight. A mixed race black man was nominated by a major political party to lead it in the fall election race and the posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the president of the USA. I'm old enough to remember Little Rock, Montgomery, the loss of JFK, MLK and RFK, all within the same decade, along with LBJ's signing of the equal rights act. There is still a long way to go, but as a country, we have come a long way in less than 55 years. May we continue the journey. Lew |
O/T: A Milestone
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:17:06 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Strictly a non wood working post. The USA achieved a milestone tonight. A mixed race black man was nominated by a major political party to lead it in the fall election race and the posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the president of the USA. I'm old enough to remember Little Rock, Montgomery, the loss of JFK, MLK and RFK, all within the same decade, along with LBJ's signing of the equal rights act. There is still a long way to go, but as a country, we have come a long way in less than 55 years. May we continue the journey. Lew Then you're old enough to remember that we are STILL in a cultural war that has ragged since the 1960's. No matter how ridiculous, or pathetic, even minor local (parochial?) issues become major battlefields for the cultural war. As the old guard warriors in this verbal war pass into retirement and their grandchildren grow into adulthood and become voting age, the voice calling for a truce can be heard; well, it could be heard if a few would just stop shouting slogans. Just ask yourself how YOU perceive the strongest supporters of Hillery, don't you equate them with the front line cultural soldiers from the days of the ERA amendment to the Constitution? Be honest now. Those ERA fighters could be called now Liberal Ladies of Maturity and Experience in political causes. (You may choose your own non-Politically Correct phrase in the privacy of your own home.) But I digress, IMHO, there can be no winner in the cultural war. We keep battling the same issues over and over with no retreat. The battle appears to become a war of 'Code Words' and everyone is just preaching to the choir of their choice. So, a sport stadium filled with people to hear an authentic partisan political speech by the first person of ethnic background other than full Northern European ancestry, as Lew pointed out, which is an historical moment. An event that people can tell, and re-tell, I WAS THERE. Not necessarily for the speech's content, but the context of giving the speech. My only hope for the futu come November, we can get over 75% of the registered adults of the USA to actually VOTE. And then, God Willing, let the Adults of this country agree to live with the results of the election. That ain't going to happen, but I can still hope can't I? |
O/T: A Milestone
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Strictly a non wood working post. The USA achieved a milestone tonight. A mixed race black man was nominated by a major political party to lead it in the fall election race and the posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the president of the USA. The real milestone will be when nobody points out that he's mixed race. |
O/T: A Milestone
In article , B A R R Y wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote: Strictly a non wood working post. The USA achieved a milestone tonight. A mixed race black man was nominated by a major political party to lead it in the fall election race and the posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the president of the USA. The real milestone will be when nobody points out that he's mixed race. Or cares. Or even notices. |
O/T: A Milestone
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , B A R R Y wrote: Lew Hodgett wrote: Strictly a non wood working post. The USA achieved a milestone tonight. A mixed race black man was nominated by a major political party to lead it in the fall election race and the posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the president of the USA. The real milestone will be when nobody points out that he's mixed race. Or cares. Or even notices. Including the candidate himself... -- |
O/T: A Milestone
dpb wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: In article , B A R R Y wrote: Lew Hodgett wrote: Strictly a non wood working post. The USA achieved a milestone tonight. A mixed race black man was nominated by a major political party to lead it in the fall election race and the posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the president of the USA. The real milestone will be when nobody points out that he's mixed race. Or cares. Or even notices. Including the candidate himself... -- True! |
O/T: A Milestone
Yet, within minutes, the Fear and Misinformation (read: distortions
and outright lies) Campaign began. Yes, he's a great orator. Hitler was also a great orator Therefore ? Britany Spears and Paris Hilton are celebrities He's become a celebrity Therefore? He SAYS he's a Christian But - he's REALLY a . . . He's got a "secret BLACK agenda" that was put together by . . . He's Pro Abortion and for Gay Rights for "god's" sake! Only those who served in the Military saw combat (even at 600 mph and from half mile or more up) got shot down, and spent years as a tortured POW can truly call themselves a Patriot. He wants to surrender The War On Terror just when we're about to WIN! He changes his mind to suit the political winds (as opposed to changing his mind based on new information and conditions, or worse yet, refusing to acknowledge ANY information that conflicts with something you WANT to be true) He's too young and inexperienced (as opposed to too old and with a real nasty temper) Because he's been against drilling for oil in Anwar and opposed NEW off shore oil leasing (as opposed to drilling on the leases that have been unused for decades) he WANTS high gas prices. : : : The GOP (notice how "Republican" is being avoided?) doesn't seem to be able to discuss or debate real issues - so that leaves Attack Campaigns, which typically don't require verifiable facts or have much if anything to do with truth. I truly hope that this will be the last desperate throws of The Good Old Boys era. But I ain't holdin' my breath. charlie b |
O/T: A Milestone
On Aug 29, 10:55*am, charlieb wrote:
Yet, within minutes, the Fear and Misinformation (read: distortions and outright lies) Campaign began. Yes, he's a great orator. Hitler was also a great orator Therefore ? Britany Spears and Paris Hilton are celebrities He's become a celebrity Therefore? He SAYS he's a Christian But - he's REALLY a . . . He's got a "secret BLACK agenda" that was put together by . . . He's Pro Abortion and for Gay Rights for "god's" sake! Only those who served in the Military saw combat (even at 600 mph and from half mile or more up) got shot down, and spent years as a tortured POW can truly call themselves a Patriot. He wants to surrender The War On Terror just when we're about to WIN! He changes his mind to suit the political winds (as opposed to changing his mind based on new information and conditions, or worse yet, refusing to acknowledge ANY information that conflicts with something you WANT to be true) He's too young and inexperienced (as opposed to too old and with a real nasty temper) Because he's been against drilling for oil in Anwar and opposed NEW off shore oil leasing (as opposed to drilling on the leases that have been unused for decades) he WANTS high gas prices. : : : The GOP (notice how "Republican" is being avoided?) doesn't seem to be able to discuss or debate real issues - so that leaves Attack Campaigns, which typically don't require verifiable facts or have much if anything to do with truth. I truly hope that this will be the last desperate throws of The Good Old Boys era. *But I ain't holdin' my breath. charlie b It might be now that McCain picked Palin |
O/T: A Milestone
"Limp Arbor" wrote in message ... It might be now that McCain picked Palin Probably a good choice to pick a H Clinton substitute. |
O/T: A Milestone
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:05:16 -0500, Leon wrote:
"Limp Arbor" wrote in message ... It might be now that McCain picked Palin Probably a good choice to pick a H Clinton substitute. But it's so obviously a ploy to get the disgruntled Hillary backers vote. Just like Obama's choice was a ploy for working class votes. Politics as usual. |
O/T: A Milestone
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ... On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:05:16 -0500, Leon wrote: "Limp Arbor" wrote in message ... It might be now that McCain picked Palin Probably a good choice to pick a H Clinton substitute. But it's so obviously a ploy to get the disgruntled Hillary backers vote. Just like Obama's choice was a ploy for working class votes. Politics as usual. Many years ago it became all about the candidate getting elected, never mind what he promised or suggested what he might do for the nation after he gets in. |
O/T: A Milestone
In article , "Leon" wrote:
Many years ago it became all about the candidate getting elected, never mind what he promised or suggested what he might do for the nation after he gets in. Or might do *to* the nation... |
O/T: A Milestone
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:23:57 -0700, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:05:16 -0500, Leon wrote: "Limp Arbor" wrote in message ... It might be now that McCain picked Palin Probably a good choice to pick a H Clinton substitute. But it's so obviously a ploy to get the disgruntled Hillary backers vote. Just like Obama's choice was a ploy for working class votes. Politics as usual. Yup.... Just when was it that politics became a career choice, not something you did for maybe 8 years and them went back to your real job? This will be the first time in 40 years that I'm not voting... I'm tired of voting for the candidate that I fear the least, and not having someone that I WANT to have in the office.. It's also the first year that I've ever kept my big mouth shut about who/why/when etc... Because as I've told my non-voting friends for years, "If you don't vote, you have no right to bitch".. mac Please remove splinters before emailing |
O/T: A Milestone
"mac davis" wrote in message ... On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:23:57 -0700, Larry Blanchard wrote: On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:05:16 -0500, Leon wrote: "Limp Arbor" wrote in message ... It might be now that McCain picked Palin Probably a good choice to pick a H Clinton substitute. But it's so obviously a ploy to get the disgruntled Hillary backers vote. Just like Obama's choice was a ploy for working class votes. Politics as usual. Yup.... Just when was it that politics became a career choice, not something you did for maybe 8 years and them went back to your real job? This will be the first time in 40 years that I'm not voting... I'm tired of voting for the candidate that I fear the least, and not having someone that I WANT to have in the office.. It's also the first year that I've ever kept my big mouth shut about who/why/when etc... Because as I've told my non-voting friends for years, "If you don't vote, you have no right to bitch".. That is not true. If you feel that there is nobody qualified for the job, you don't want to be responsible for putting a politician into power who can do harm just so you can have a vote. You are then still able to bitch about the lame duck whom others put into power. |
O/T: A Milestone
"l job? This will be the first time in 40 years that I'm not voting... I'm tired of voting for the candidate that I fear the least, and not having someone that I WANT to have in the office.. It's also the first year that I've ever kept my big mouth shut about who/why/when etc... Because as I've told my non-voting friends for years, "If you don't vote, you have no right to bitch".. mac Please remove splinters before emailing Go vote for a third party candiate, You put in a protest vote, You have the right to bitch, You don't help either of the party candiates, You have your say. What could be better this year? |
O/T: A Milestone
mac davis wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:23:57 -0700, Larry Blanchard wrote: On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:05:16 -0500, Leon wrote: "Limp Arbor" wrote in message ... It might be now that McCain picked Palin Probably a good choice to pick a H Clinton substitute. But it's so obviously a ploy to get the disgruntled Hillary backers vote. Just like Obama's choice was a ploy for working class votes. Politics as usual. Yup.... Just when was it that politics became a career choice, not something you did for maybe 8 years and them went back to your real job? This will be the first time in 40 years that I'm not voting... I'm tired of voting for the candidate that I fear the least, and not having someone that I WANT to have in the office.. It's also the first year that I've ever kept my big mouth shut about who/why/when etc... Because as I've told my non-voting friends for years, "If you don't vote, you have no right to bitch".. mac Whenever an absolute monarch becomes less than absolute, you get career politicians. mahalo, jo4hn |
O/T: A Milestone
On Aug 29, 12:08*pm, mac davis wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:23:57 -0700, Larry Blanchard wrote: On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:05:16 -0500, Leon wrote: "Limp Arbor" wrote in message .... It might be now that McCain picked Palin Probably a good choice to pick a H Clinton substitute. But it's so obviously a ploy to get the disgruntled Hillary backers vote.. Just like Obama's choice was a ploy for working class votes. Politics as usual. Yup.... *Just when was it that politics became a career choice, not something you did for maybe 8 years and them went back to your real job? This will be the first time in 40 years that I'm not voting... I'm tired of voting for the candidate that I fear the least, and not having someone that I WANT to have in the office.. It's also the first year that I've ever kept my big mouth shut about who/why/when etc... Because as I've told my non-voting friends for years, "If you don't vote, you have no right to bitch".. mac Please remove splinters before emailing Last Govenator race here in NJ I did a write-in. You should still vote even if it is not for one of the 'two' choices. |
O/T: A Milestone
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Strictly a non wood working post. The USA achieved a milestone tonight. A mixed race black man was nominated by a major political party to lead it in the fall election race and the posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the president of the USA. I'm old enough to remember Little Rock, Montgomery, the loss of JFK, MLK and RFK, all within the same decade, along with LBJ's signing of the equal rights act. There is still a long way to go, but as a country, we have come a long way in less than 55 years. May we continue the journey. Lew It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate. |
O/T: A Milestone
mac davis wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:23:57 -0700, Larry Blanchard wrote: On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:05:16 -0500, Leon wrote: "Limp Arbor" wrote in message ... It might be now that McCain picked Palin Probably a good choice to pick a H Clinton substitute. But it's so obviously a ploy to get the disgruntled Hillary backers vote. Just like Obama's choice was a ploy for working class votes. Politics as usual. Yup.... Just when was it that politics became a career choice, not something you did for maybe 8 years and them went back to your real job? This will be the first time in 40 years that I'm not voting... I'm tired of voting for the candidate that I fear the least, and not having someone that I WANT to have in the office.. Instead of not voting at all, use your vote to send a message. Vote for a third party candidate, or make a write-in-vote. I'm with you, I don't want either Obama or McCain. But it's going to be one of them anyway. I live in a state where the outcome is a foregone conclusion, so the "lesser of two evils" doesn't need my vote. So this time I plan on doing what I suggested to you. If the Libertarian or Green candidate actually got say 10% of the popular vote, it may not change the outcome of the election, but just maybe the major parties will start listening. |
O/T: A Milestone
Just Wondering wrote:
It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate. "Age and Citizenship requirements-US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." That’s it. Those are the requirements for being President. |
O/T: A Milestone
Rita and Neil Ward wrote:
Just Wondering wrote: It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate. "Age and Citizenship requirements-US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." That’s it. Those are the requirements for being President. Those are the minimal constitutional requirements. Are you suggesting that every single person who meets those requirements is actually qualified to be the chief executive of the federal government? |
O/T: A Milestone
"Just Wondering" wrote: It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate. Just curious, what do you see as a lack of qualification(s) for the task of president of the USA. Lew |
O/T: A Milestone
|
O/T: A Milestone
"Phil Again" wrote:
As the old guard warriors in this verbal war pass into retirement and their grandchildren grow into adulthood and become voting age, the voice calling for a truce can be heard; well, it could be heard if a few would just stop shouting slogans. Just ask yourself how YOU perceive the strongest supporters of Hillery, don't you equate them with the front line cultural soldiers from the days of the ERA amendment to the Constitution? Be honest now. Those ERA fighters could be called now Liberal Ladies of Maturity and Experience in political causes. (You may choose your own non-Politically Correct phrase in the privacy of your own home.) But I digress, IMHO, there can be no winner in the cultural war. We keep battling the same issues over and over with no retreat. The battle appears to become a war of 'Code Words' and everyone is just preaching to the choir of their choice. So, a sport stadium filled with people to hear an authentic partisan political speech by the first person of ethnic background other than full Northern European ancestry, as Lew pointed out, which is an historical moment. An event that people can tell, and re-tell, I WAS THERE. Not necessarily for the speech's content, but the context of giving the speech. My only hope for the futu come November, we can get over 75% of the registered adults of the USA to actually VOTE. And then, God Willing, let the Adults of this country agree to live with the results of the election. That ain't going to happen, but I can still hope can't I? There is no question that women in the work place are being discriminated against. As I told my daughter when she was about 15-16. "If your grades are twice as good as your brothers, you will probably get a job that pays 1/2 of what your brothers will be paid for the same work, but that is the way things are right now." "Maybe you will be able to change things." Things have changed, but there is a long way still to go, IMHO. As far as politics being a blood sport is concerned, the results have been very non productive the last 25 years. Hopefully, it will not continue after the upcoming election. This election will drag the old body politic screaming and kicking into the 21st century. Take your choice, either a mixed race president or a female vice president. Either way, it will be a first. Lew |
O/T: A Milestone
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Just Wondering" wrote: It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate. Just curious, what do you see as a lack of qualification(s) for the task of president of the USA. I'm curious, too. Specific disqualification(s), please. -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/ |
O/T: A Milestone
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
There is no question that women in the work place are being discriminated against. As I told my daughter when she was about 15-16. "If your grades are twice as good as your brothers, you will probably get a job that pays 1/2 of what your brothers will be paid for the same work, but that is the way things are right now." Nonsense. Women, *on average* make less than men for the same job becasue *on average* they take time off to have kids and raise families, and thus miss out on raises and promotions. If an employer could literally get the same work for half the price, dont'cha think the workplace would be nothing but women? |
O/T: A Milestone
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Just Wondering" wrote: It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate. Just curious, what do you see as a lack of qualification(s) for the task of president of the USA. Hell, I'll settle for explaining how he's less qualified than the bozo we've had for seven years. |
O/T: A Milestone
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:24:51 -0500, krw wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed, Bush isn't running. Yes he is - clones count :-). |
O/T: A Milestone
"Richard Evans" wrote:
Nonsense. Women, *on average* make less than men for the same job becasue *on average* they take time off to have kids and raise families, and thus miss out on raises and promotions. Huh! What part of same pay for same job did you miss with your above analysis? It has already been defined that the male and the female have the same qualifications for the task. What path was followed by either the male or the female to arrived at the qualified status, is simply not relavant to the discussion. Lew |
O/T: A Milestone
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Richard Evans" wrote: Nonsense. Women, *on average* make less than men for the same job becasue *on average* they take time off to have kids and raise families, and thus miss out on raises and promotions. Huh! What part of same pay for same job did you miss with your above analysis? It has already been defined that the male and the female have the same qualifications for the task. For a narrow definition of "same". What path was followed by either the male or the female to arrived at the qualified status, is simply not relavant to the discussion. When qualification includes time on the job, it certainly is relevant. Two identically qualified people, one male and one female. They both enter the workforce at the same time. Twenty years later, the man has been constantly on the job and available for raises and promotions. The woman takes off five years to raise a family and misses those same opportunities. When she rejoins the workforce, she has five years less experience than the man and is no longer equally qualified. When you average all such employees, women's wages *average* less than men's. When you control for time on the job, the effect disappears. Carrying your argument to it's absurd conclusion, the two enter the workforce together, the woman works one year and takes nineteen off, then rejoins the workforce at the same rate as the men who've been there all along? |
O/T: A Milestone
"krw" wrote in message t... In article , rested says... (Doug Miller) wrote in : In article , "Leon" wrote: Many years ago it became all about the candidate getting elected, never mind what he promised or suggested what he might do for the nation after he gets in. Or might do *to* the nation... Yeah... the Bush legacy could suffer irreparable damage. Imagine the chaos that might ensue if The Department of Homeland Security had to operate under the crushing restrictions of the U.S. Constitution. The horror! In case you hadn't noticed, Bush isn't running. McBUSH is. Dave in Houston |
O/T: A Milestone
Just Wondering wrote:
Rita and Neil Ward wrote: Just Wondering wrote: It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate. "Age and Citizenship requirements-US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." That’s it. Those are the requirements for being President. Those are the minimal constitutional requirements. Are you suggesting that every single person who meets those requirements is actually qualified to be the chief executive of the federal government? They are not minimal: they are the only requirements under our constitution. Yes every person who meets those requirements is qualified to be the chief executive of the federal government. Abraham Lincoln had less than one full year of formal education in his entire life. Woodrow Wilson was a political novice who had held only one public office before becoming president. Harry Truman was the last president without a college degree, served as vice president just 82 days when sworn in as president of the United States. |
O/T: A Milestone
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:35:06 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote: It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate. You mean like the last guy...??? Mike O. |
O/T: A Milestone
"Richard Evans" wrote:
For a narrow definition of "same". Narrow definition? When qualification includes time on the job, it certainly is relevant. About the only thing time on the job provides is proof of the ability to survive the company politics. The basic question about the employee with say 25 years of service becomes: Do we have an employee with 1 years experience 25 times or do we have an employee with 25 years experience? Two identically qualified people, one male and one female. They both enter the workforce at the same time. Twenty years later, the man has been constantly on the job and available for raises and promotions. The woman takes off five years to raise a family and misses those same opportunities. When she rejoins the workforce, she has five years less experience than the man and is no longer equally qualified. I don't know of a man alive who could do the job of a woman as a homemaker. The experience far exceeds the management training given to entry level employees by leaps and bounds, IMHO. Her learned negotiating skills alone are worth the wait. Carrying your argument to it's absurd conclusion, the two enter the workforce together, the woman works one year and takes nineteen off, then rejoins the workforce at the same rate as the men who've been there all along? If it take 20 years to learn the assigned task, then I've made a mistake assigning the task to that person. Lew |
O/T: A Milestone
In article ,
says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , rested says... (Doug Miller) wrote in : In article , "Leon" wrote: Many years ago it became all about the candidate getting elected, never mind what he promised or suggested what he might do for the nation after he gets in. Or might do *to* the nation... Yeah... the Bush legacy could suffer irreparable damage. Imagine the chaos that might ensue if The Department of Homeland Security had to operate under the crushing restrictions of the U.S. Constitution. The horror! In case you hadn't noticed, Bush isn't running. McBUSH is. The only other choice is Barry Obortion; no contest! -- Keith |
O/T: A Milestone
"Just Wondering" wrote in message ... It's not the color of his skin, it's his qualifications for the office. It may be a "milestone" but I see it as a major disservice to the country to nominate an unqualified candidate. Stop it - he had a full 143 days in office in his previous position. -- -Mike- |
O/T: A Milestone
|
O/T: A Milestone
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message news:Kh_tk.40$393.10@trnddc05... "Phil Again" wrote: As the old guard warriors in this verbal war pass into retirement and their grandchildren grow into adulthood and become voting age, the voice calling for a truce can be heard; well, it could be heard if a few would just stop shouting slogans. Just ask yourself how YOU perceive the strongest supporters of Hillery, don't you equate them with the front line cultural soldiers from the days of the ERA amendment to the Constitution? Be honest now. Those ERA fighters could be called now Liberal Ladies of Maturity and Experience in political causes. (You may choose your own non-Politically Correct phrase in the privacy of your own home.) But I digress, IMHO, there can be no winner in the cultural war. We keep battling the same issues over and over with no retreat. The battle appears to become a war of 'Code Words' and everyone is just preaching to the choir of their choice. So, a sport stadium filled with people to hear an authentic partisan political speech by the first person of ethnic background other than full Northern European ancestry, as Lew pointed out, which is an historical moment. An event that people can tell, and re-tell, I WAS THERE. Not necessarily for the speech's content, but the context of giving the speech. My only hope for the futu come November, we can get over 75% of the registered adults of the USA to actually VOTE. And then, God Willing, let the Adults of this country agree to live with the results of the election. That ain't going to happen, but I can still hope can't I? There is no question that women in the work place are being discriminated against. As I told my daughter when she was about 15-16. "If your grades are twice as good as your brothers, you will probably get a job that pays 1/2 of what your brothers will be paid for the same work, but that is the way things are right now." "Maybe you will be able to change things." Things have changed, but there is a long way still to go, IMHO. As far as politics being a blood sport is concerned, the results have been very non productive the last 25 years. Hopefully, it will not continue after the upcoming election. This election will drag the old body politic screaming and kicking into the 21st century. Take your choice, either a mixed race president or a female vice president. Either way, it will be a first. Lew Now that is just amazing. Two posts from two different people that rambled on in rhetorical nothingness, and which I'm sure each felt equally fulfilled in as they hit SEND. Neither one said a damned thing. -- -Mike- |
O/T: A Milestone
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:24:01 -0400, Richard Evans
wrote: When qualification includes time on the job, it certainly is relevant. Two identically qualified people, one male and one female. They both enter the workforce at the same time. Twenty years later, the man has been constantly on the job and available for raises and promotions. The woman takes off five years to raise a family and misses those same opportunities. When she rejoins the workforce, she has five years less experience than the man and is no longer equally qualified. When you average all such employees, women's wages *average* less than men's. When you control for time on the job, the effect disappears. The numbers don't really bear that out. http://stats.bls.gov While there is no control for "time on the job" there is a "never married" category, a "no children under 18" category and several age group categories including for ages 16 to 24. All of these categories seem to reduce the need to adjust for seniority or for time off due to child bearing. All of these categories still show women earning 11% to 20% less. While not as high as other categories (some over 25%) the difference does not disappear. Mike O. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter