President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 05, 2012 03:43 PM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 63 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Because apparently it’s not the weekend yet.

Comments

63 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread

  1. Romney is a very intelligent man.  He has two things that Obama lacks:  Big Money and a brilliant campaign staff that has the capacity to respond with lightening effect.

    A week ago, when the Supremes found AHCA constitutional, a rapid poll showed that the country was evenly split on the bill -49% in favor and 49% opposed.  That was the most favorable rating the legislation has had.

    A week later, the public has reverted to being against so-called “Obamacare.”  Why?  Because Romney and the entire Republican establishment have convinced the American public that Obamacare is the largest middle class tax raise in history because the Surpeme Court said so.  And the response or answer from the Obama camp?  NOTHING. NADA

    Instead, dems are smugly pointing out that Romney has reversed himself again.  WTF cares?  The American public, once again, has been “educated” by the Repubs while the dems sit around in a self-congratulatory daze…not realizing that once again they have been outgunned.

    Now, pollsters, jump all over my comment if that helps you fell better.  I am an old fart and can take it.  However, know, that I post these criticisms, not to enrage you all, but in the vague hope that this blog is still “the most read political blog in Colorado” and that

    someone, somewhere, with the democratic party power center will get this honest feedback.

      1. I’ve long said that the Dems think that once the voters understand the facts, that they will vote Dem.  Of course not, voting is emotional.  How else can you explain the millions of idiots that re-elected GW.  Probably voting for their own kind.  

        1. parsingreality wrote:

          I’ve long said that the Dems think that once the voters understand the facts, that they will vote Dem.

          .

          I definitely agree here. There are wiser heads in the party; however, they don’t seem to have the same amount of influence.  

    1. Dwyer, I recall Stephanie Cutter and other Obama surrogates aggressively saying the ACA is a huge tax CUT for people buying health insurance.

      I suppose falsely insisting the Dems are doing “NOTHING. NADA.” makes it so much easier for you to pretend the entire Dem party is a bunch of fucking losers, all ignoring your secret knowledge of what they need to do.

      1. I know who Michelle Bachman is.  I don’t have a clue who the hell is Stepanie Cutter and who the hell are the “other Obama surrogates?’

        You see, r1, commentary by obscure talking heads in regard to AFCA does not equal a coordinated campaign across all media by well know and elected republican officials.

        The only “secret” stuff going on is the democratic campaign.  ….evidently you need a code word to access it.  You sure as hell can’t find it on media outlets.

        1. rather very, very well known. Dwyer, I think you need to turn off the radio and turn on the TV in the evening or early AM. There has been a lot of publicity and airing of a graph, which doesn’t translate well to radio, that the increase in “tax” due to ACCA is only the 10th largest tax increase in 30-40 years.

          1. the link?  Any link?  Whose graph?  I didn’t know that there would be a “tax increase.”  On whom?  I thought it was just a penalty tax on anyone who would not buy insurance and that would only be about 1% of the population.

            I am glued to the TV…msnbc, fox, cnn and c-span….just tell me who the hell is stephanie cutter….saying she is “very, very, well known” is not a fact, just your opinion.  My opinion: ….No, she is not.

            I do listen to the radio in the am….and when the eyes are giving out, which they do….so graphs don’t help…..I have not seen any ads with graphs….

            Whose side are you on? I mean, really?

            1. Not sure how you can say you are glued to the TV and not know who she is. She is all over it whenever the campaign needs to get out a talking point or rebut a Romney talking point.

              1. Now, okay, I am top heavy watching MSNBC…I do skip Rachel sometimes.. I still have no recollection of Stephanie Cutter…

                I catch all the Sunday shows.  I am sorry, I don’t know who she is. Period.

                  1. Far enough.  I don’t know who Eric Fehrstrom is, either.

                    Stephanie Cutter – first time I have ever seen her.  

                    I was no more impressed with her than I was with the clip of Eric Fehrstrom if he is the spokesperson who said that the penalty was not a tax or was a tax or whatever.

                    I like what Michael Steel said….”Everyone is at the beach…no one is listening.”  Which is just as well because I could not make head nor tails of what Cutter said or Fehrstrom…..But, she was on MSNBC.

              2. Im sure democratic party operatives all knownwhomshe is. But their votes are a slam dunk. Outside of people working on the campaigns, is anyone seeing the Dem message?

                The only TV I see is at the gym and it alternates between CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. Ignore MSNBC and FOX as they’re preaching to the choir. But on CNN the discussion is about the tax that’s hitting everyone. It’s the Republican message. And the Dems they have talking are doing a lousy job defending instead of refuting. And playing on the Republicans field.

          1. because (shocker) its not grounded in reality.

            Romney has big money and Obama does not ?

             Between Obama super pacs, the DNC and the Obama campaign they have raised $ 471 million.  Between the RNC, the Romney campaign and Romney super pacs they have raised $ 264 million.

            linky – http://www.washingtonpost.com/

            Romney has a brilliant campaign staff ? Etch a sketch ? Amercia ? Flip flopping on whether or not ACA penalties are a tax, an issue he could clearly have made hay out of ?

              1. I am so, so sick of the lies.  It is a valid point though that the Obama campaign is severely lacking in getting their message out, or at least correcting the lies that are out there.  They need to start calling bullshit all the time instead of sitting on their hands.

          2. because I didn’t know who Stephanie Cutter was either.

            Romney already has an ad up saying Obama has raised taxes on the middle class.

            If a party star like Stephanie is the best the dems can put forward to explain what the SCOTUS ruling on Obama Care means to the American public, we deserve to loose.

    1. I’ve never seen anyone use it.

      And, if someone is driving two or ten miles to the library from home, why would they use it?

      Another failed feel good measure.  “Just do SOMEthing.”

  2. What I am hearing on talk radio and what I saw Michelle Bachman promote is that the new AHCA bill includes a 3.6% federal tax on the sale of every property – commercial and personal.  Is this true?

    I am also hearing that this is the largest tax increase in US History.  Does anyone have the facts to refute this?

    Finally, the propaganda is that the IRS will hire 12,000 new agents to enforce the tax penalty if people don’t pay the “largest tax increase in US history.”

    1. Just like the Death Panels.

      Amazing what shit they get aware with.

      It’s only a (rather modest) tax if you don’t have health insurance AND file a tax return.  Even then, it’s a lot cheaper than buying any health insurance w/o subsidy.

    2. … you sure don’t bother looking into any of the facts of what you’re talking about. I googled your answer in about 4 seconds:

      … a new 3.8 percent tax on the net investment income of high-income persons. But the claim that this would amount to a $15,200 tax on the sale of a typical $400,000 home is utterly false. … [O]nly those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples … ) will be subject to it. And even for those … , the tax still won’t apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence – or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home. … “Some home sales would see a tax increase under this bill … but it would have to be a second home or a principal residence generating [a gain of] more than $250,000 ($500,000 for a couple).”

      http://www.factcheck.org/2010/

      But yeah, Michelle Bachman should definitely fear-monger with her tea party knuckle-draggers about a tax on (a) second home sales and (b) sales of only those residences generating over $500K in profit.

      1. See, I turn on the TV and hear Michelle Bachmann….and no answer from the dems at the same time and place.

        Just tell me what you googled.  A link would help.

        The real facts I am talking about are the facts that concern how the repubs are getting out their message and how the dems are not getting out their message and NOT refuting what the repubs are saying…..except evidently in obscure websites ….that is the real fact.

        Michelle and her teaparty  knuckle-draggers  cleaned your clock in 2010…get over it.

          1. Since you still haven’t figured out the GOOGLE…but still think every crazy thing Bachmann says should be refuted:

            The IRS has absolutely no ability to enforce the penalty or tax or whatever. As I posted elsewhere, it’s actually written into “Obamacare”. Here’s a link for you that explains the toothless penalty enforcement:

            http://www.opencongress.org/ar

    3. Looks like the IRS must be planning to lay off 4,500 armed agents 😉  Back in 2010, the claim (promoted by Ron Paul) was that there would be 16,500 armed agents hired to enforce the ACA.

      Total fabrication of course: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/

      Not only is the IRS not hiring enforcement agents for this purpose, but

      In any case, the bill signed into law (on page 131) specifically prohibits the IRS from using the liens and levies commonly used to collect money owed by delinquent taxpayers, and rules out any criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to pay the tax or those who don’t obtain coverage. That doesn’t leave a lot for IRS enforcers to do.

      1. You guys are refuting me. I am not the problem.  I appreciate the links to the information on the republican talking points. .however this is the problem…..

        the repubs have talking points that are all over the media….they are then repeated, REPEATED, by people who get their information from the media, not factcheck.org.

        So: This is what the dems expect the average citizen…like the uncommitted…to do: ..listen to the republican talking points, turn off the tv/radio and go to factcheck.org to find out the truth……knowing of course that factcheck.org has been described by the right as “left leaning.”

        You really think that will work?

        Could someone tell me the last time Cutter appeared on TV?  Thank you.

        1. But Dwyer, I think what we’re really asking you in particular to do is instead of just repeating the right-wing talking points and asking if they are true, we’re sort of hinting that while you might still listen to and report those same lies, you could also complete your blog post with the same correcting entries via the same sources we have been providing to you.

          Could/should Dems do more? Of course, and that part of your message probably can’t be repeated enough.

          But honestly, when you won’t do the research to find out and communicate the facts, then what hope is there that the low information voters will even listen to any Dem messages?

          1. You all already know the facts, evidently.  I appreciate the information.  I did not think that factcheck.org would have information on the completed multipage ACA legislation.

            I asked legitimate questions, based on what I was hearing on the main stream media as well as right wing radio.  My point was that I asked for clarification here, because I sure as hell was not hearing it on the same venues that the repubs were using so successfully to get their talking points across….hy, see this is called “framing the message” that is what the repubs do brilliantly…which was my original point….

            My second point is :  I am NOT the problem.

            1. Per your comment above:

              Now, pollsters, jump all over my comment if that helps you fell better.  I am an old fart and can take it.  However, know, that I post these criticisms, not to enrage you all, but in the vague hope that this blog is still “the most read political blog in Colorado” and that

              someone, somewhere, with the democratic party power center will get this honest feedback.

              That way, by not just pulling the fire alarm all the time, you can pick up a bucket or two and help put out the fires of misinformation with the rest of us.

              1. This is not the place to refute lies; it is the responsibility of the official paid party hacks to manage a campaign that responds promptly and effectively to republican lies.  

                In lieu of an effective campaign on the part of the democratic party, I do not accept responsibility to “stand in the gap” or be the “thirteen man.”  That is crap.

                If I understand this correctly, your response is that undecided voters and people who hear lies on the media should not expect the democratic party to answer the lies, rather the voter should take the initiative to go to the internet and investigate and find out what is true and what is not.  And if they don’t?  

                Too bad for them.

                I don’t think that ordinary people visit this website….I think that political hacks do….to quote again from my original post…..I hope that I can give honest feedback to someone who has power within the democratic party..to frame the message more effectively.

                I shall persist.  

              2. You want everyone to live in your own personal echo chamber?

                People who hear different shit and believe different shit are mutants or what?

                There are lots of opinions flying around in the airwaves.  The more we know what they are, the better prepared we are to refute them.

                Killing the messenger is a poor strategy.

                1. I’m not shooting the messenger in Dwyer.  Perhaps naively, I thought that like Jason Salzman, rather than simply report the trash from the right wing talkers, Dwyer might take a few more minutes (it really doesn’t take long with Google as I’m sure you know) and also discover for himself and provide the counter-information and context around the misinformation.

                  And as Aristotle does, countering the posts with correcting information, both here and at the red sites.

                  That’s all I’m saying.  If I had more free time, I’d do it too.

        2. Stephanie Cutter was on Chuck Todd’s “Daily Rundown” MSNBC show this morning answering pretty tough questions from Chuck.  

          She did a good job, as always.

  3. Between the debt due from the 101st Repub Chickenhawk Typewriter Brigade over the cost of the Iraq war, and the burden of the .5% to fight in both wars, I think the OTHER 1% need to start ponying up…


    Didn’t send your kid to war? Maybe you can send $$



    WASHINGTON (AP) – If you have military-age children who have not served in this decade’s wars, then you owe a debt – meaning money – to those who did. That’s the premise of a new fundraising effort by three wealthy American families who want to help U.S. veterans of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Every non-military family should give something, they said. The affluent should give large sums. No one should think of it as charity, but rather a moral obligation, an alternative way to serve, perhaps the price of being spared the anxiety that comes with having a loved one in a war zone.

    “We have three able-bodied, wonderful, wonderful children, all of whom are devoted to doing very, very good things around social justice; and we could not be more proud of them,” said Philip Green, a local businessman who devised the fundraising idea. “We’re also delighted that none of them had to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan.”

    Green says he and his wife came to look at that as unfair: “I realized that there were parents just like me down the street, down the block … who did not have that luxury” and were suffering sleepless nights and anxiety, “which I was able to avoid.”

    Green, president of health care consultancy PDG Consulting, and his wife Dr. Elizabeth Cobbs, head of geriatrics at Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Washington, teamed with two other couples to start the fundraising. Together, they donated a total of $1.1 million. Contributing with Green and Cobbs were Glenn Garland, head of Texas-based CLEAResult energy consultancy, and his wife, Laurie, and Jim Stimmel, CLEAResult’s executive vice president, and his wife, Patty.

    http://www.businessweek.com/ap

    ‘tad can start….

  4. Apparently, once Ban Ki-moon seizes control of Delta County we can expect the following to be banned:

    Air conditioning, cars, ski runs, convenience foods, single family housing, and damming of reservoirs …

    http://www.deltacountyindepend

    Remember–No more peanut butter and crackers.  Stop the UN now.  

  5. Several asked to see my recipes from yesterday’s (BBQ Day) thread.

    Here is the dry rub one.  I call it dry rub in principle, but DO use an oil at application time, see below

    Unlike most others, this rub will work with pork, fowl, or beef. Skinless chicken is suddenly a low calorie flavor bomb!

    Apply dry or wet (see below) Memphis style. Cook in, and liquid sauces become optional. Yummy all on its lonesome self.

    Mix dry in a bowl:

    (In tablespoons)

    1 Oregano

    2 Ground black pepper

    2 Onion powder

    1 Marjoram

    4 Paprika

    2 Chili powder

    1 Jamaican Allspice

    1 Mustard powder

    1 Rosemary

    1 Cayenne Pepper

    1 Cumin

    1 Coriander

    1 Salt

    2 Dark Brown Sugar

    Pulverize in blender or food processor. Will keep “forever” in a sealed jar.

    How to use:

    A cup will generously cover about 12 pounds of ribs.

    Traditional Memphis style dry rub: Spread on wet or oiled meat, both sides. Acceptable oils include melted lard, tallow, or butter, or coconut. Real, natural stuff, not oils chemically extracted from bird food.

    Wet Memphis: Mix rub 1:1 with oils mentioned above. Nice and microwaved hot, it will both brush on easily and the oil soluble herb flavor compounds will start to be released. Low and slow cooking will continue this.

    How to cook:

    Keep it low, around 225 degrees Fahrenheit. Start with an hour of apple, hickory, or other hardwood smoking. Continue with heat until done.

    How to eat:

    Use teeth. Be prepared for sudden auditory exclamations. If desired, use a finishing sauce likeNorth Carolina “low country” vinegar and pepper, my “Piedmont Powah'” inspired by the western North Carolina tomato based version, or my “The Kansas City Boss” heavy, rich,thinned some. But sauces are really optional for this “No options required” experience.

    Remember the BBQ Battle Cry, “It’s all good!”

  6. Use by itself or after my “Bayou #14” rub or as a finishing sauce on the plate.

    K.C. style sauces are heavy on the tomato, sugar, and go on the meat in the last fifteen minutes or so, depending on grill temperature.  It needs sugar to get that partial carmelization.  BUT, if you are avoiding big sugar loads, like I do, use Splenda cup for cup.

    If you want thick, dark, rich and deep flavors – not unlike a great Maduro wrapped cigar in a different hedonistic category – this is your ecstasy in a jar.  Makes about 6 cups.  Mix in large bowl.

    One quarter cup (1/4 C.) ingredients:

    Lemon Juice

    A1 type steak sauce, any brand

    Molasses

    Half cup (ВЅ C.) Ingredients:

    Yellow Mustard, cheap-ola is fine

    Cider Vinegar

    Worcestershire Sauce

    Onion powder.  

    Full Cup Ingredients;

    2 Ketchup

    1 Dark Brown Sugar OR same of Splenda plus another 1/4 c of molasses

    One Tsp. Ingredients:

    Ground Black Pepper

    Salt

    4 of crushed garlic, from a jar is fine.

    Tablespoon (TBL) Ingredients:

    2-3 of mild Chile Powder

    1 of Tabasco Sauce

    Optional Ingredient:

    2 TBL of Woody’s Cook In Smoke Sauce.

    If it needs thinning, water or whiskey.

    About 135 calories per 1/4 cup of the Splenda version.  

  7. Republican operative Laura Carno is helping Republicans cover up their war on women by starting her own 527, “I Am Created Equal”.

    Ignoring all this shit, Laura and her rose-colored glasses cheerfully intone, “The government doesn’t give us our rights. They simply are our rights.”

    Right you are, Laura, but guess what? You live in a country that didn’t even offer you voting rights until less than 100 years ago. And you’re living in a country where your own party’s budget slashes programs that help women, children, and families, while protecting tax cuts for millionaires, 63% of whom are men. You’re living in a country where one of the most prominent mouthpieces of the conservative agenda, O’Reilly, openly supports insurance coverage of Viagra, while opposing the same coverage of birth control. You live in a country in which your party actually opposed prohibiting health insurers from charging women more just for having vaginas. Oh, and there was that incident a few weeks ago where just saying “vagina” got two Democratic legislators in trouble, but legislating what they can do with their vaginas was A-OK by the Republican leadership.

    Carno goes on to say:

    I don’t need protection from the nanny state. What I need is to have my rights protected so that I can get on with making my own choices.

    So, you’ll be voting Democrat, then, Laura? ‘Cause if you suggest to any member of your own party that women can make their own choices, you’d better step back to avoid getting the goo on your blouse when their heads explode.

    1. The reason health insurance for women costs more than men is because………they use doctors more.  Some of this IS due to those vagina and breasty things, they are higher maintenance items even without the costs of child bearing.  

      The other factor is women tend to run to the doctor for lesser things than men do.  

      Here’s a quote that covers both aspects:

      “Under the age of 55, women tend to be higher utilizers of health care than men,” a health insurance actuary who helps calculate rates for Nebraska and other states told the NYT. “I am more conscious of my health than my husband, who will avoid going to the doctor at all costs.”

      From: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/20

      I’m waiting for car insurance to not use gender in rating….waiting….waiting….  The reason that women come out better on one insurance, and worse on the other are actuarial facts.  

      Which means, since gender rating will be outlawed under Obamacare, men will be paying for some of the costs for carrying women, because they have to average them to stay profitable.

      And we still will be paying more for car insurance.  

      1. Women should take personal responsibility for the costs of their health care. That means if insurers say they are more expensive to ensure, women should just learn to make more money in order to afford more expensive insurance. If they’re earning 75 cents to a man’s dollar, that’s probably because they keep dropping out of their careers to have babies.

        Obviously, men don’t have any role in causing women to become pregnant and give birth, so it’s only fair that women bear both the direct and indirect costs of their tendency to give birth and cost their insurers a lot of money. Of course, if they don’t want to have babies, they could always abstain from sex or purchase birth control without insurance coverage. Just don’t give us any nonsense about allowing them to have abortions if they don’t want to continue an expensive pregnancy that may not even be covered by their health insurance! Personal responsibility you make sure you don’t have sex, get raped, or become a victim of incest, and if you get pregnant anyway despite precautions, you suck it up and don’t even

        dare

        to suggest that the man who contributed his sperm to the pregnancy should absorb some of the costs of covering your care.

        Is that about right?

        Did you notice this in the article you posted?

        Insurers say that’s because women are more likely than men to get regular checkups, to take prescription medications and to have certain chronic diseases, the NYT says.

        Let’s highlight the important part:

        Insurers say

        BREAKING: Foxes Say High Rates of Hen Loss Typical of Henhouses

        Spokesman Cinnibar Fawkes licked his chops as he explained to reporters that chickens are simply foolhardy birds with a higher than average tolerance for risk. “I mean, we’re talking about hens who go out after dusk. It’s just a tendency of theirs. We guard the henhouse scrupulously, but there’s just a certain average rate at which hens will disappear, leaving nothing behind but feathers and a barely perceptible smear of blood.”

        How about we look at the original source for that quote, rather than a Wall Street Journal blog cherrypicking from the NYT piece?

        Here are some choice excerpts from the actual, investigative journalism version, rather than the one-sided blog quoting it:

        Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, an advocacy group that has examined hundreds of individual policies, said: “The wide variation in premiums could not possibly be justified by actuarial principles. We should not tolerate women having to pay more for health insurance, just as we do not tolerate the practice of using race as a factor in setting rates.”

        Here’s another:

        Mr. Bykerk, a former executive vice president of Mutual of Omaha, said, “If maternity care is included as a benefit, it drives up rates for everybody, making the whole policy less affordable.”

        NO FUCKING SHIT. Pardon my French, but it takes two to make a baby. Of course maternity care costs should drive up rates for men, too. Every pregnancy involves two parents. Unless we want to make a precedent of putting those costs only on the shoulders of people (both male and female) who have kids — unlike education, which costs even childfree people money on their taxes — then everyone should be contributing to that pool.

        How ’bout one more:

        Mila Kofman, the insurance superintendent in Maine, said: “There’s a strong public policy reason to prohibit gender-based rates. Only women can bear children. There’s an expense to that. But having babies benefits communities and society as a whole. Women should not have to bear the entire expense.”

        Men having more car accidents is no benefit to communities and society as a whole. Honestly, I wouldn’t vote against prohibiting sex discrimination in insurance altogether, but you can’t pretend they’re the same thing. Health insurance sex discrimination is simply punishing women for the organs they’re born with and putting responsibility for pregnancy on only one of the two people who contribute to every pregnancy. Sex discrimination in auto insurance is passing on the costs of voluntary participation in risky driving behaviors to the people who engage in them.  

        1. And just because some sources are not people or institutions that we embrace, doesn’t mean that the facts are wrong.

          I was merely trying to point out that women DO cost insurers more, even if there are logical reasons like womb possession, more checkups, more drugs.  So, basically, you’ve reinforced my position.

          Now I get to really get you pissed off: Do you know why women make 75% of what men do?  Because if you take all male compensation, and all female compensation, you do get something like that.  Care to think a tad deeper on why?  They tend to have part time work for mothering purposes, tend to be in lesser paying jobs like CNA, office assistant, etc.

          What needs to be looked at to see where things are at are two: Is there identifiable job discrimination going on in a company?  And, are they paying women with the same education and background less?  (And, oh, there’s the matter of women not being as aggressive in negotiating, according to researchers.)

          I have two daughters who were engineers at Motorola and Dell before changing to Mommy.  And daughter three, dual degreed in biology and nursing.  If they, or I, ever heard that they were being paid less due to their gender, I’d be the first to scream, “Sue the bastards!”

          OTOH, per some discussions we’ve had, they all feel that they have actually been favored in the job market and promotions BECAUSE they are women.  

          Cowgirl, I really like your insights and posts.  But sometimes cold, naked facts don’t fit our liberal persuasions.  

          1. “Because women cost more because they’re born with women-parts, they should pay more,” is wrong. Factually and morally. Women are not responsible for their genitals. Women do not have the choice to change them–hell, even gender reassignment surgery is much better for MTF than FTM still. Insurers do not have the right to claim that actuarial requirements permit them to discriminate against women.

            The EEOC has prohibited sex discrimination in employer-sponsored plans for years, and no insurers went out of business, no company stopped hiring women, and no men went broke as a result. Prohibiting the same in the individual market is simply common sense, given the shift away from employer-driven careers toward contracting, business ownership, and entrepreneurialism since the recession.

            As for wage discrimination–which is exactly what it is–you’re repeating another convenient fiction. “Women make less because they choose to!” That’s bullshit. Some individual women, and an increasing number of individual men, choose part-time careers or lower-paying jobs that allow them to have more family time. However, just because you (and I, for that matter) can present anecdotal evidence of fair treatment of women  and anecdotal evidence of women occasionally choosing lower-paying jobs does not mean women are not experiencing systemic wage discrimination. Examine the following:

            a survey of public relations professionals, showing that women with less than 5 years of experience make $29,726 while men with the same amount of experience make $48,162. For P.R. professionals in the 5-10 year category, women earn $41,141 while men earn $47,888. In the 10-15 year category, women earn $44,941 and men earn $54,457. In the 15-20 year range, women earn $49,270 and men earn $69,120.

            Texaco, which agreed to pay $3.1 million to 186 female employees who were found to be systematically underpaid compared to their male counterparts.

            a study of women in the telecommunications industry documenting a gap even when education was the same. For example, among video programmers, women with advanced degrees earn 64.6% of their male counterparts, and women with college degrees earn 80%

            The primary “study” used to support claims that the wage gap is a “myth” is titled something like “Debunking False Feminist Claims blah blah blah” and is full of blatantly coded language making clear that the (female) author is taking on not facts with facts, but feminism with selective presentation of slanted research. She appears to have a bone to pick with the entire concept of feminism, and draws conclusions such as, “Because even career women will choose a high-earning partner for marriage if one is available, all women prefer to be supported by men.” Seriously, that’s in the “study.”

            Uh, as a woman, I like dating guys who have a career because the last one who didn’t ended up moving into my house and eating all my food and didn’t get another job until after I threw him out. But I guess I could just be looking for a man to support me, after all! That’s probably why I work at least 60 hours a week and have a business on the side. Because I’m trying to entrap a man into paying my “bills bills bills,” like the Destiny’s Child song. By, uh, working so much that I have no time to spend with men. Yep.

            (Tangent over… but the point is, this woman is a bigot. She’s the Phyllis Schlafly of today. And it’s unbecoming of decent people to hear her “research” quoted here and there and accept it as fact.)

            Your arguments exhibit the just world fallacy, in that you find it more comfortable to believe that systemic discrimination against women is so, totally last Millennium, therefore you fit the facts into a framework suggesting that the world really IS just. Women pay more? Must be because it’s their fault for the lady parts! Women earn less? Must be because they prefer to!

            Could it perhaps be that, in a world where giving birth is punished as if it’s a betrayal of your individuality and your employer, where every President, nearly every Senator, and the vast majority of corporate executives are and have always been men, we’re just not quite there yet with the equality thing?

            I’ve never experienced wage discrimination because of my gender (that I know of), but that doesn’t mean nobody experiences it. I’ve certainly run into powerful misogynists, here and there. I can tell you that the thought of any person who really believes the things they do being my employer is terrifying to me. And it doesn’t help when even my fellow liberals are eager to excuse misogynists if it makes them feel like they live in a more just world.

            1. Some bottom line:  Men, especially young men, pay a lot more for car insurance than women of the same ages.  Why?  Because pesky statistics show that we cost insurance carriers more money.

              So, if women cost more money to insurance carriers, why shouldn’t they pay more? Pre-ACA, of course

              I’m talking cold, brutal, actuarial stats, not ideology. Yes, I’m not a cookie cutter liberal, lining up to spout the religion.  

              I think, therefore I annoy some people.  

              1. You are unable to respond?

                Men choose to participate in risky driving behavior.

                Women do not choose to have female genitalia.

                Childbearing is of value to society.

                Car accidents are detrimental to society.

  8. If you get a chuckle from this joke, you probably are:

    A Higgs boson walks into a church.

    The priest says, “We don’t allow Higgs bosons in here.”

    The Higgs boson replies, “But without me, how can you have Mass?”

  9. Chaplains face few issues after DADT repeal

    Prior to repeal, various conservative groups and individuals – including many conservative retired chaplains – warned that repeal would trigger an exodus of chaplains whose faiths consider homosexual activity to be sinful.

    In fact, there’s been no significant exodus – perhaps two or three departures of active-duty chaplains linked to the repeal. Moreover, chaplains or their civilian coordinators from a range of conservative faiths told The Associated Press they knew of virtually no serious problems thus far involving infringement of chaplains’ religious freedom or rights of conscience.

    “To say the dust has settled would be premature,” said Air Force Col. Gary Linsky, a Roman Catholic priest who oversees 50 fellow chaplains in the Air Mobility Command. “But I’ve received no complaints from chaplains raising concerns that their ministries were in any way conflicted or constrained.”

    http://www.militarytimes.com/n

    Money Quote:

    Another conservative denomination with a large contingent of chaplains – 114 on active duty – is the Assemblies of God.

    Scott McChrystal, a retired Army chaplain who oversees them, said the concerns that preceded repeal had not been borne out.

    “Since the actual repeal, I cannot recall a single instance where I’ve gotten a call from one of our chaplains who’s had a problem,” he said. “Our goal as an organization is simply to provide as much help as we can to anybody we can.”

    I wonder what the RomneyBots have to say on this – one was for Gays in the military serving openly, before the other was against it….

    1. Nobody in the military has to see a chaplain if they don’t feel like it, correct? So why in the world did they think t3h g4yz would bother them? I assume gay men and women who aren’t interested in religion choose not to visit the chaplains, and those interested in religion would rather talk to a more liberal chaplain anyway.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

46 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!