There appears to be confusion about separation of powers.Our future depends on those who can learn from the past and see into the future.Our President is one of those.My years,including active reserve time,active duty and inactive time in the USAF doesn’t make me an expert on war,but I believe the time of Isis is a kind of wartime and only the chief executive ( commander in chief) is authorized constitutionally, to make foreign policy decisions. The interfering action of 47 republican senators seems outrageous.I believe that from the standpoint of aid and comfort to an enemy, both Benedict Arnold(he did give us Saratoga!)and Stephen Decatur would call it treason!
There are 28 women who are heads of state in the modern world.the U.S.A is not one of them.Germany has passed legislation requiring 30% of major corporations in Germany to be headed by women.In the U.S in excess of 235,000 women are incarcerated in prison,the largest number of women incarcerated in the world.Women still make only 75% of what men make for the same work.The U.S. is a work in progress and most of us are optimistic that we are moving forward toward fairness and equity.The billionaires who are calling for more equitable distribution of american largesse see tax reform as a beginning.(with earned income tax relief the start.).Given the hedging of bets by Wall Street,readiness for Hiiary involves some clarification as to what resources she can command to the cause of needed reform.The tempest in a teapot about her email is more easily dealt with. (sans hubris.)
View original post 517 more words
Dangerously close to post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning! Statistical inference is designed to avoid such error.Here are two very different scenarios.1.20 people apply for similar positions 15 are men and 5 are women.All are hired. The men are hired for 25% more than the women.(why?)
2.20 people apply for similar positions 15 are hired all are men (why/) The five not hired are women who are allowed to reapply and were hired at 25% less salary than the men.These examples show the meaning of the 75%.(The exception seems to be construction where the women are up to 95%).
It is one thing to end up in a bad neighborhood. I have much worse to report.with serious injury averted only through quick thinking. It is another thing when the threat is from the forces representing law and order!.this scenario means that an ordinary venue becomes a danger scene!
It is strange that those who talk constitutional separation of powers are willing to violate it in the name of transparency.Stephen Decatur is turning over in his grave.. I expect Benedict Arnold would be handling it better!! Let’s hear from some millenials!
I understand statistical analysis. This proves only that it is true that women and men tend to be paid differently, often for the same job description. I did not and do not deny that fact. Here is what is important: All factors considered, if women (on average) were truly as valuable for a job as men (on average), market forces would even out the pay scale. Bidding by an employer for their services would be equally high (or low). Far more factors are at play than just the job description. No one in government can know all the mundane and not so mundane factors as can the employer and the potential employee. Also, it is reasonable to ask why an employer should be forced to pay more than a willing worker will accept. And if laws force employers to pay more than an employee is worth, what harm does that do to the economy, to destroying incentives, to destroying businesses, to efficiencies across the board? And there is the conflict of “force” and “freedom” to consider. What kind of country do we wish to live in? And, of course that is getting to the essence of two Americas, our political differences. And yes, lets hear from all who like to think to the purpose of understanding the most probable truths!
An efficient economy manages to attract talent quickly to wherever it is needed. Talents for all skills are not equally distributed among the sexes, races, or ages (for multiple reasons they have different interests and talents). Demanding that a government require statistical equality of hiring must not only diminish the availability of appropriate talent going to where it is most needed, it would force many costly miss matches.
Daedal2207 repeats the widespread absurdity that “women still make only 75% of what men make for the same work”. Why is it absurd? Because, if true, an employer would fire the men and hire only women thereby immediately reducing labor costs by 25% without reducing quality or quantity of service or product.
Daedal2207 tells an interesting story about his early experience with racism in the south. I too have had such an experience. What are the real lessons to be concluded?
It was the summer of 1960. I had just completed a two week course of Army reserve training at Fort Lee, Virginia. I bought an old Vespa, secured a sleeping bag and sketchbooks to the rack and explored the east coast. Bumping though a mostly black section of Washington DC, my sketch book freed itself from its shock cord. When I retraced my path I found pages from it in the gutter. I asked some people standing on the sidewalk if they had seen my book. One of them took me aside and told me that I had better get out of this area. He knew some local people who would knife me just because I was white and in “their territory”.
So, some blacks can be dangerously racist and some humane. The black who took me aside was protective of me. But I knew these things early on by observing behavior around me, by reading the news, by reading history; that all humans (no matter their race) are capable of a vast range of sentiments, which include a vast range of dysfunctions. So, CONSCIOUSLY AVOIDING INAPPROPRIATE GENERALIZATIONS, I drove on, taking care to avoid dysfunctional people (and ideas) – and enjoyed the adventure.
But, sometimes truly big dysfunctions occur such as a leftist change in the philosophy of government impacting on our world. Complete avoidance is impossible. Consider:
Daedal2207’s premise about our President“knowing” the past and future” is likely untrue. Therefore his conclusions are suspect. Our President has displayed stubborn resistance to correction, and a willingness to divide and deceive. His world-view sees the US in a field of fault requiring him to “apologize” to the world for our sins. That view caused him to retreat, to reduce the influence of (special to US) disciplines that enhance individual freedom, thereby causing vast voids into which disciplines of tyranny are now flowing.
Obama failed to intellectually convince others in Congress (endowed by our constitution with shared power) and therefore he resorts to historically unauthorized levels of authoritarian decree and opacity. His poor leadership skills have provided more than enough evidence for Congress to understand that this President is hostile to their constitutional rights. As Commander in chief he (tragically) leads our war efforts. These efforts exist within a confusing web of legalities given the undeclared nature of this war. He can make Presidential promises that will be valid for his tenure, but without the agreement of Congress he cannot legally make treaties (but he will try). A Congress that understands the dangers of his world view must do what it can to reduce the damage. Allowing red lines to be crossed again and again demonstrate that a nuclear Iran is more likely with this President in charge of conducting opaque agreements (“We will have to pass it to know what is in it.”). It is not outrageous for Congress to attempt to force transparency into the procedure. Clarity for all sides should guide such immensely important decisions. It would be outrageous to the values of freedom not to try.