Politics (formerly Election 2012)

[Dantriges]

No native speaker so I refrained from commenting on that part. The timing is obviously bad, to meddle in such an affair in such a way and well the sentence sounds quite obnoxious to me but I am not sure if I understand that sentence right.

[Paxen]

The statistic everyone quotes is that median full-time female pay is 77% of median full-time male pay.
But that is largely because some of the highest-paying fields like engineering, law, medicine, and finance are disproportionately populated by men, which throws off the median. Not because men and women are necessarily earning different amounts for the same equivalent job.

You're ignoring the effect that occupation seen as "women's work" see their pay drop over time. Teacher used to be a highly respected and highly paid profession, but after women have mostly taken over, where is the pay now?

[Malthrax]

But I'm not from the US, so I have no idea if you have kooky laws that may or may not be region-specific that alter that. But do bear in mind that a lot of outrage over the statement is about the context/timing of it from what I understand of people making a fuss about it.

The context - he was referring back to something his father told him when he was a boy.

The timing - he said it about eight months ago, and it resurfaced recently as a result of partisan dirt-digging.

A state representative is drawing heat for saying that his father had told him when he was young that "some girls rape easy" as a way to warn him that a woman could agree to sex but then later claim that it wasn't consensual.

Freshman Rep. Roger Rivard (R-Rice Lake) in December [2011] discussed a case with the Chetek Alert newspaper in which a 17-year-old high school senior was charged with sexual assault for having sex with an underage girl in the school's band room.

- http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolit ... 87961.html


IF what he said was that damning, where was the nationwide outrage in December of last year?

[Klaudandus]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress ... n-20120711

Here, how women are paid as House and Senate staff. Those working for republicans earn a lot less than men in the same position. Yeah, dems also fall behind, but not as much as reps

[Shoju]

Am I the only one who ISN'T offended by Roger Rivard's "Some women rape so easy." comment? It sure seems so, or maybe I'm one of the few who read the context.
OTOH, I look at it more from the lens that women get raped, men enjoy it bullshit. I think this could be spun to showcase how women largely just have to say it's rape and it's rape, whereas there is social stigma against men admitting the same, and even no law against said acts.

Course, I have a strong sense of fair play, which has gotten me in trouble before.

I have a teenage son. One of his friends just found himself in this very type of situation. Never in my wildest dreams would I have said "Some Girls Rape Easy" when explaining it all to him. That's just a really shitty way to say something.

And then... He is now an old man. You should have the forethought to realize that if you say something stupid like "Some Girls Rape Easy" you are looking at a storm of idiocy.

You can say "Well, he's just quoting his even older father"

Sure he was. But we have progressed as a society. There are kinds of things that even my grandparents said that I certainly wouldn't repeat in front of a reporter while I'm running for public office. That's just dumb, like I said. I'm not saying that he was making light of rape, I'm saying that he should have chosen not to use such an obviously "old" statement.

[Shoju]

Am I the only one who ISN'T offended by Roger Rivard's "Some women rape so easy." comment? It sure seems so, or maybe I'm one of the few who read the context.
OTOH, I look at it more from the lens that women get raped, men enjoy it bullshit. I think this could be spun to showcase how women largely just have to say it's rape and it's rape, whereas there is social stigma against men admitting the same, and even no law against said acts.

Course, I have a strong sense of fair play, which has gotten me in trouble before.

I have a teenage son. One of his friends just found himself in this very type of situation. Never in my wildest dreams would I have said "Some Girls Rape Easy" when explaining it all to him. That's just a really shitty way to say something.

And then... He is now an old man. You should have the forethought to realize that if you say something stupid like "Some Girls Rape Easy" you are looking at a storm of idiocy.

You can say "Well, he's just quoting his even older father"

Sure he was. But we have progressed as a society. There are kinds of things that even my grandparents said that I certainly wouldn't repeat in front of a reporter while I'm running for public office. That's just dumb, like I said. I'm not saying that he was making light of rape, I'm saying that he should have chosen not to use such an obviously "old" statement.

IF what he said was that damning, where was the nationwide outrage in December of last year?

Because, as we learned with Romen Noodles' 47% comment, sometimes things are slow to propagate, even in the age of the interwebz.

[Brekkie]

The statistic everyone quotes is that median full-time female pay is 77% of median full-time male pay.
But that is largely because some of the highest-paying fields like engineering, law, medicine, and finance are disproportionately populated by men, which throws off the median. Not because men and women are necessarily earning different amounts for the same equivalent job.

You're ignoring the effect that occupation seen as "women's work" see their pay drop over time. Teacher used to be a highly respected and highly paid profession, but after women have mostly taken over, where is the pay now?

I don't find convincing the idea that there is somehow CAUSATION here. I think that is highly questionable logic.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress-legacy/how-congressional-republicans-and-democrats-pay-women-20120711

Here, how women are paid as House and Senate staff. Those working for republicans earn a lot less than men in the same position. Yeah, dems also fall behind, but not as much as reps

This, however, is decent data.
I accept that there is clearly a discrepancy.

[Paxen]

I don't find convincing the idea that there is somehow CAUSATION here. I think that is highly questionable logic.

Why not? You just agreed that women working for congressmen do in fact get paid less for the exact same job as male staffers. Why would not the same effect work on teacher's salaries as the profession became more and more dominated by women?

[Delphineas]

I don't find convincing the idea that there is somehow CAUSATION here. I think that is highly questionable logic.

Why not? You just agreed that women working for congressmen do in fact get paid less for the exact same job as male staffers. Why would not the same effect work on teacher's salaries as the profession became more and more dominated by women?

One is a snapshot. The other is 2 just points of data, without accounting for other possible factors.

[Skye1013]

Are male teachers getting paid more than female teachers? Or did the salary for teachers as a whole drop?

[Klaudandus]

Since I work in the educational field, I'd say it has dropped across the board.

Raises are handed out across the board as well -- the only difference is seniority and special stipends given to teachers in certain positions, like master teacher or special education teacher.

the problem the educational field has, specially in texas, is budget cuts. our school district had its budget cut by 10 million two years ago... and texas is intent in cutting it again...

[Klaudandus]

[Melathys]

[Aubade]

Got my Voter Pamphlet today in the mail!

Haven't read the candidates yet but read all of the iniatives/referendums on the WA Ballot today. Excited to see if our new Marijuana law goes through.

although the taxes set forth in the law are RIDICULOUS. 25% from grower -> Processor, 25% from Processor -> Retailer -> 25%(Plus 9.7% Sales tax) From Retailer -> consumer. And at a $3 a gram from grower->Processor, $6 a GRam from processor ->Retailer and $12 a gram retail price (estimated prices), the state is looking to make almost a billion dollars in the next 5 years, at the LOW end of the spectrum.

[Brekkie]

I read an interesting article in the Economist yesterday about how the budget crisis amongst states has had the unintended consequence of social change due to loosening of regulations and restrictions.

Several states have allowed gambling and casinos in, in the hopes of added revenue. A couple have made fireworks legal, and a large number of previously "dry" states and counties have allowed the sale of alcohol, expanded it's sale to Sundays, increased the hours for sales, or privatized the state monopoly on booze. (That was one interesting thing I discovered; many states have had a monopoly on alcohol sales ever since the end of Prohibition!)
A couple states also have weed legalization on the ballot.

All of these have been driven by the desire to find ways to raise more revenue without raising income taxes. The hope is that more sales of more things will bring in increased sales tax.

Oddly enough, many of these initiatives are being specifically marketed to the state legislatures on the grounds of limited government and liberty, but have been previously (and even in many cases STILL) opposed by Republican-controlled state legislatures or governors because things like selling beer on a Sunday gives social conservatives the willies.
It took the scramble to find new revenue in order to push many of these deregulations through.

[Skye1013]

So... uh... what is the religious stance on weed? I mean, I'm sure it's a sin or something, but I don't think I've ever heard of any Bible verses that speak out against it (maybe it's because people are too concerned about gays and babies to be all that worried about getting high...)

[aureon]

So... uh... what is the religious stance on weed? I mean, I'm sure it's a sin or something, but I don't think I've ever heard of any Bible verses that speak out against it (maybe it's because people are too concerned about gays and babies to be all that worried about getting high...)

The bible has no stances on weed, exactly like it has no stance on abortion. Gays are somewhat debatable, but still dubious territory, far beyond "earth is flat" territory.

[Thalia]

So... uh... what is the religious stance on weed? I mean, I'm sure it's a sin or something, but I don't think I've ever heard of any Bible verses that speak out against it (maybe it's because people are too concerned about gays and babies to be all that worried about getting high...)

Guess you can always use the "Your body is your Temple" to negate it, but that goes for anything that would harm your body or brain cells. My personal brain cell killer of choice is the pumpkin ale beers, I love them, everything else IMO is a waste of money and stinks to high heaven. Smell of weed makes me want to puke. Same thing with cigarettes, i can't stand hugging my mother in law she smells like an ash trey.

[Klaudandus]

what if you follow the school of hedonism?

[Thalia]

what if you follow the school of hedonism?

You know I don't know if it will really help. They are just gonna tax the weed like they tax the liquor here, to high heaven. I still get my alcohol, the good stuff, from California sometimes cuz they tax it so high here. They will do the same to the weed and people will still go get their weed from their weed dealers who will probably sell it at half price. Plus that still doesn't fix the spending problem.

The more revenue you get means you will find something to spend it on...well at least in government it usually does. Personally, I have seen my income quadruple over the last 7 years, yet so did my bills...sigh. But at least it was due to an investment, which is now self sustaining and starting to show profit (aka the comic book store).

[Klaudandus]

well, my comment was very tongue in cheek

and glad to hear the comic book store is doing well

also, yeah... govt will always find ways to spend money, just wish they were wiser about it

i mean, cutting education doesnt make much sense, although the education system in the us is broken...

i'll get into more detail later, but i am on my phone

[Klaudandus]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/2 ... f=politics


uuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh~

[Brekkie]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/20/arthur-allen_n_1992370.html?utm_hp_ref=politics


uuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh~

I am of two minds when it comes to this issue.

One the one hand, this is totally free speech. A CEO is just a citizen, and can advocate whoever they want. It's not the government's place to ban or place limitations on that kind of speech.

On the other hand, however, the employer-employee relationship is NOT an equal one, and these CEOs are definitely making their statements within the context of that employer-employee relationship using company email and throwing their titles around, not as one private citizen to another. There are definite undertones of "Vote the way I tell you to, or I will conduct massive layoffs to express my displeasure."
While technically legal, I think that kind of behavior is HIGHLY unethical.

If these CEOs merely wanted to express their free speech and make a persuasive appeal to voters, they should do something like write an opinion piece for a local newspaper.
Doing what they are doing smacks of coercion, not free speech.

[Skye1013]

If only corporations were subject to the UCMJ... that shit wouldn't fly at all.

[Fridmarr]

Unfortunately, I have almost no time to respond to a lot of this stuff over the last few pages, as I've been unexpectedly slammed with work. However, this issue keeps coming up and I just can't bite my lip any longer.

I'm honestly a bit mystified by the complaint here given that this sort of thing is standard operating procedure for democrats, it's one of their biggest and most effective strategies.

They go after the worker, with the same sorts of comments, through their unions. Often it's ethically worse though because unions also force workers to join (non right to work states), force them to pay dues, contribute those dues to political candidates regardless of the positions of their members, and "ask" their members to "volunteer" (is it really volunteering if they take role?) for all sorts of political things. Heck I used to work in a union shop, which was state employees, and the hallway bulletin boards were full of this sort of stuff.

Employers have all sorts of restrictions and risk significant legal exposure if they were to actually threaten, much less follow through, with retaliation for a vote which they can't even access anyhow. So they stick to the mantra that electing person X will cause us to lose money, and if we lose money we have to lay off workers. Unions can't really access that vote either, but they do make that exact same claim and they can and do coerce their members to support their candidates, and even ridicule them... http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/0 ... JT20120802 when they don't.

If Romney's phone call (which he's probably more than happy was recorded, because now folks are talking about something that the premise of which is that he's better for jobs), or bosses suggesting to their employees who to vote for bothers you, then you ought to be downright pissed about one of the primary strategies of the democrats.