We learn a great many false facts from elites!

THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2014

Maddow does it again: As we noted in our last post, we get a lot of the things we “know” from our ruling elites.

Our elites settle on a “fact.” We all get told that it’s true.

It’s a bad way to proceed. Often, our elites agree to tell us facts which simply aren’t true. One example:

In the fall of 2012, the nation was told a bunch of crap about the things Susan Rice supposedly said.

Plainly, the things we were told weren’t true. But so what? Everyone agreed to say them, or at least not to challenge the script. Example:

For two solid months, Rachel Maddow’s Debunktion Junction was taken off the rails. Rachel didn’t repeat the false claims about Rice. But she agreed to let the bogus claims go, as did the other TV stars on her cable “news” channel.

There would be no debunking those claims; Rachel agreed to keep her trap shut. To this day, the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton, have paid a large price for this silence.

Why did the TV stars play clam? You tell us! But last night, Maddow went out of her way to peddle a bogus fact.

This time, the bogus claim is one we liberals enjoy. Beyond that, Maddow almost surely knows that the bogus claim is false.

In last night’s second segment, Maddow discussed two presentations by Obama which got huge applause Tuesday night. One was his tribute to Cory Remsburg, the Army Ranger who was badly wounded in Afghanistan during his tenth deployment.

The other explosive reaction, Maddow said, greeted Obama’s presentation about equal pay for women. Maddow played tape of the wondrous moment, knowing that what Obama said was grossly misleading—basically just untrue:
MADDOW (1/29/14): The other huge applause line, which happened during the domestic policy part of the speech...It was just sort of a reaction from the assembled lawmakers in that room which wasn’t like all of the others. It was this moment right here:

OBAMA (videotape): Now today, women make up about half our workforce, but they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong. And in 2014, it's an embarrassment. Women deserve equal pay for equal work.

[CHEERS, APPLAUSE]

It is time to do away with workplace policies that belong in a Mad Men episode. This year, let's all come together— Congress, the White House, businesses from Wall Street to Main Street—to give every woman the opportunity she deserves, because I believe, when women succeed, America succeeds.

[CHEERS, APPLAUSE]

MADDOW: Roaring, standing ovation! High fives! Fist pumps from the audience! That applause line right there sort of had it all.

And it was apparently not just women inside the Capitol who responded to that particular section of the speech in a way that was just slightly overwhelming. President Obama’s emphasis on equal pay for women last night, the Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg did a dial testing survey in Denver during the speech? He found that, with his focus group, when the president hit that particular line about equal pay, Stan Greenberg says that was met by his focus group with, quote, near universal approval from Democratic and Republican women, sending the approval specifically of unmarried women, quote, off the charts of the dial meter.
Please note two key facts:

As we noted yesterday, Obama didn’t say that women get paid 77 cents on the dollar “for equal work.” He rather plainly implied it. But he didn’t actually say it.

We will assume that’s because he knows that claim is false.

Also note this: Maddow never said that Obama called for “equal pay for equal work.” She merely said, two separate times, that he had called for “equal pay for women.”

We’ll assume that’s because Maddow understands that famous statistic. After her misadventures in April 2012, it’s very, very hard to believe that she doesn’t understand.

In that passage, the public is being misled by both Obama and Maddow. Almost surely, they both know that the public is being misled.

Just a guess: Because the implied claim is so wildly popular, each of these “music persons” agrees to advance it. But they know the implied claim isn’t true—that the public is being conned.

What is wrong with the famous old claim about the 77 cents? It isn’t a measure of discrimination, as Obama and Maddow both know. It isn’t a measure of “equal pay for equal work.”

Back in April 2012, Maddow may not have understood that. She went on Meet the Press and asserted the hoary old claim—and found herself contradicted by a Republican strategist.

Thirty-six hours later, on her own show, Maddow was pretending that she still didn’t understand why she had been challenged. Incredibly, she even said she had spent a lot of time that day trying to puzzle it out.

What a giant pile of crap! Even the expert she brought on the show explained that the actual measure of discrimination is much smaller than 23 cents. “Of course, these numbers from BLS and Census Bureau are not really talking about discrimination,” the expert instantly said, right at the start of her segment.

(Thankfully, the expert explained this in such disguised language that most people watching the show wouldn’t know what they had heard. Elites cover for elites in these ways.)

Yesterday, Glenn Kessler fact-checked that claim from Obama’s address. As he concluded, he cited “one survey, prepared for the Labor Department, which concluded that” the actual measure of discrimination in the hourly wage amounts to “about 5 cents on the dollar.”

It’s hard to measure the amount of the gap which results from discrimination, but no expert in the field thinks it’s 23 cents. As far as we know, no one thinks it’s anywhere near that much. But people stand and applaud when you say it is, so elites will stand up and mislead you.

Sadly, it makes us liberals love Rachel more when she hands us this well-crafted crap.

In our view, Maddow’s rather large impulse toward deception is the most fascinating part of her makeup. After what happened two years ago, she surely know what’s wrong with that famous old claim—the claim that women get paid 77 cents on the dollar “for the same or equal work.”

She knows that hoary old claim isn’t true, but she wants you to believe it. They all stood and cheered when Obama said it. We’ll also stand and cheer her!

Maddow failed to challenge the lies about Rice in the fall of 2012. Last night, she misled us rubes in an affirmative way. This is a familiar process:

Most of the things we know we learned in kindergarten. Beyond that, a lot of our “facts” are handed to us by elites.

For various reasons, our elites agree to tell us various things which are bogus. These claims are constantly pimped by dumb or dishonest hosts.

This is not a good way to proceed. In this case, the bogus claim for which everyone cheered is the marker of a progressive elite that doesn’t know how to make its case about real issues affecting women.

Maddow is the last person on earth who will ever be able to move the dials in “middle America” about the issues in which she believes. Instead, she went on TV last night and conned us rubes.

Again!

118 comments:

  1. President Obama claim about the difference in earnings of men and women for equal work was false and it is impossible that the speech researchers and speech editors did not know that even if the President did not know the claim was false.

    Rachel Maddow had to know the claim was false, Maddow had researchers and editors as well and they had time to check, but Maddow chose to lie.

    LTR

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correcting:

      President Obama's claim...

      LTR

      Delete
    2. Obama didn't say that. Somerby said he did.

      Delete
    3. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/us/politics/state-of-the-union-address-text.html

      January 28, 2014

      Text of Obama’s State of the Union Address

      You know, today, women make up about half our workforce, but they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment.

      Women deserve equal pay for equal work. (Cheers, applause.)


      This is what the President said and this is wrong and in being wrong will in no way contribute to policy designed to increase the creation of good jobs for men and women.

      Delete
    4. The fact that women make 77% of the average income of men is a well established fact.

      You say it is wrong for the President to say women deserve equal pay for equal word. You would prefer him to say women should be paid unequally for equal work?

      Delete
    5. Another troll pretending he or she cannot read well enough to understand what is posted here.

      The differential (77% vs 100%) occurs because of a variety of factors not just discriminatory rates of pay. Many of those factors are related to discrimination, such as women being concentrated in lower-paying occupations, or women having to do the lion's share of child care. Others have little to do with sex discrimination, such as women preferring jobs involving service to others, typically low paying in our society. When you juxtapose a concern about equal pay with this statistics, it implies that the entire 23% difference is due to unequal wages for the same work. It is not.

      But, you are trolls, so this obvious and correct complaint is something you turn into a campaign to make Somerby appeal foolish, obsessed with meaningless details, wrong, etc. The point for you is not women's wages but belittling Somerby. That makes you a sad person. It also clutters up the comments with noisy garbage that makes true conversation difficult. If you imagine that annoying regular readers here will in some way hurt Somerby, I think you are wrong -- he doesn't seem to care. It does annoy the rest of us and I don't believe we deserve this kind of harrassment.

      Delete
    6. "But you are trolls, so ..." ZZZZZZZzzzzz.

      Shove off.

      Delete
    7. Sorry Anonymous @ 2:48

      I do understand. And I will restate the figure provided by the United States Bureau of the Census for annual income of full time workers:

      In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

      That is a fact. Period. What causes it is irrelevant to its exisatence as a fact.

      Here is what the President of the United State said:

      Now today, women make up about half our workforce, but they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns.

      That too is a fact. Do you dispute it?

      Then the President of the United States said this:

      That is wrong. And in 2014, it's an embarrassment.

      That he said it is a fact. What he said is an opinion.
      Do you disagree? I am not asking your opinion. Just whether you agree or disagree.

      Finally the President said this:

      Women deserve equal pay for equal work.

      That he said it is fact. It, too, is opinion. Do you agree or disagree.




      Delete
    8. When you juxtapose the equal pay for equal work statement after the 77% statistic, you imply that the statistic exists because women are not being paid equally for equal work. No one reads a series of sentences in isolation. Each sentence contributes to the meaning.

      In a Supreme court decision, Listerine was forbidden from running ads in which a series of sentences implied that their product would prevent colds, even though no single sentence actually said so. They decided that a reasonable person would infer that claim from the ad. This is similar and the problem arises from the combination of info.

      Delete
    9. 4:11

      Men work more hours than women. That statistic isn't meant to say that women make 23% less than men when both are doing the same job.

      I think that's what blogger is trying to say. That the message implied was that they we're getting 23 percent less for equal jobs which is not true.

      Delete
    10. Sorry, no answer to my questions yet. Not a problem with waylon. He was not the one who was asked.

      Delete
    11. Waylon, do you have any evidence that shows that women work 23 percent fewer hours than men? Or that it is by their chioce?

      Delete
    12. That's not what Watkins was saying.

      Delete
  2. Here is the problem with that sentence. It had nothing to do with the amount of the pay gap. It has to do with the numerous issues affecting women that could have been mentioned but were not. Somerby gets this, as evidenced by this sentence:

    "In this case, the bogus claim for which everyone cheered is the marker of a progressive elite that doesn’t know how to make its case about real issues affecting women."

    Obama's difficulty is that women who have been paying attention already understand that he is not a strong champion of women's issues. If the Republicans were not so much worse, he would have a problem getting women's votes. It is too late to do anything meaningful about that. This kind of statement, at this point in his administration, is too little, too late. It is easy to cheer a statement like that, as a token of good intentions. It is harder to do anything meaningful about issues important to women, which always seem to be sacrificed to other political goals. False claims are the least of our problems.

    I plan to vote for Hillary Clinton, because at the very least she has always understood and worked hard for women's issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perfectly stated.

      Delete
    2. Vote for Hilary Clinton if you'd like. I'll vote for a liberal who isn't in bed with the economic elites instead.

      Berto

      Delete
    3. Who might that be?

      Delete
    4. "I plan to vote for Hillary Clinton, because at the very least she has always understood and worked hard for women's issues."

      Hillary was always the far more progressive choice. That is what was so frustrating about 2008.

      Bob is of course exactly correct, it is important that we be clear, precise and accurate when debating these issues.

      Delete
    5. the american you call lower caseJanuary 30, 2014 at 1:36 PM

      berto good and strong . . . but i, no doubt, will wind voting for her in the general

      Delete
    6. Tribal is as Tribal Does

      Go Hillary. You go, girl. Only you and BOB stand between us and the pandering progressive elite:

      http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-renews-push-to-end-wage-gap-between-sexes/49942/

      "Mrs. Clinton and other supporters say the bill is intended to stop discrimination against female employees. They cite an oft-repeated statistic that the average woman working a full-time, year-round job makes only 77 cents for every dollar that the average man makes. Critics say that statistic is misleading and does not take into account the fact that men and women often choose different types of employment.
      ..........

      "Like so many things, this administration seems to believe that the problem will go away if they make the facts go away," the senator told more than 1,400 people at a luncheon fund-raiser for Emily's List, a group that supports female Democratic candidates who back abortion rights.

      "If the president will not sign my bill to ensure equal pay for equal work, then as the next president, I will," she said to applause."

      Delete
    7. "Mrs. Clinton and other supporters say the bill is intended to stop discrimination against female employees. They cite an oft-repeated statistic that the average woman working a full-time, year-round job makes only 77 cents for every dollar that the average man makes. Critics say that statistic is misleading and does not take into account the fact that men and women often choose different types of employment."

      This was from March 2007, hopefully Ms. Clinton will not make the mistake again.

      Delete
    8. This is a misleading and mistaken sentence when you combine it with a second remark about equal pay for equal work. It is the implication that equal jobs are being compared so the differential is in salary, that is wrong here. Women do earn less money in the workplace. It is because they are in different occupations, interrupt their careers to have or care for children, are less aggressive in asking for raises, etc. that this differential arises. The fact that women do earn 77 cents for the dollar that men earn is not in dispute.

      Delete
    9. This was about the Lily Ledbetter Act which did address unequal pay for the same work.

      Delete
    10. Just because we can think up all sorts of reasons to explain the gap in earnings doesn't mean "unequal pay for equal work" isn't among them.

      In fact, when Al Gore first used this argument to push for equal pay for equal work, he said 73 cents. (Somerby's response: crickets chirping).

      It is now 77 cents. Not much progress in 14 years is it?

      Now to my mind, such a huge, persistent gap is explained by "all of the above" including unequal pay for equal work. I cannot see how it could possibly exist for so long without unequal pay being one of the factors.

      It might not close the gap entirely, but it is certainly something government can do about it.

      We might also consider that some of those other factors cited -- shorter hours, higher paying occupations -- might also be the result of discrimination against women.

      Those nuts will be harder to crack.

      Delete
  3. OMB (Rachel Do It, BOB Do It, Even little KZ do it)

    Since we are into repetition (who could miss that around here!)
    I thought I'd reprise a comment made on this same topic just the other night.

    OMB (Is Somerby Worth 77 Cents of Every Maddow)

    Where Are Bob's Feminist Friends? Part 3

    In this comment we will advance a theory which is not journalitically disproven, that BOB is female, because he is 77% Rachel Maddow.

    Watch BOB do everything he would suggest you believe Maddow
    does in one brief (well brief for BOB) post.

    BOB on Obama and the 77 Cents Issue


    "If we might borrow from Kessler’s earlier language, “Obama carefully did not say” that women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for equal work.

    Carefully, he didn’t say that. But plainly, that’s what he implied:

    OBAMA (1/28/14): The bottom line is, Michelle and I want every child to have the same chance this country gave us. But we know our opportunity agenda won't be complete, and too many young people entering the workforce today will see the American Dream as an empty promise, unless we also do more to make sure our economy honors the dignity of work, and hard work pays off for every single American.

    You know, today, women make up about half our workforce, but they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it's an embarrassment.

    Women deserve equal pay for equal work.

    (Cheers, applause.)

    In a way, a politician’s desire to mislead seemsmore clear when he implies something that isn’t true, but seems to avoid flatly saying it. It becomes harder to believe that the person just doesn’t know that the statement in question is bogus.

    Drum and Kessler both slid past the obvious thrust of Obama’s statement, which is pleasing, and highly familiar to liberals, but also grossly misleading.



    Question: Why does someone like Obama feel the need to do that? In all such instances, from any pol, our first guess would be the obvious:

    He or she chose to make the misleading statement because he or she knew it would lead to “Cheers, applause.” Also, because he or she doesn’t have truthful things to say about the topic in question which would produce that reaction.

    If we apply that interpretation, here’s why Obama said that:

    Obama is seeking support of women as a large part of his current thrust. If he has to toy with some basic facts, well by god, the times require it!

    Obama preached to the choir last night with his statement about that 77 cents. Presumably, he went with a grossly misleading statement because he had nothing accurate to offer.
    ....................

    Also, women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work! Obama said it. Our side cheered and applauded."

    KZ


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As always, the issue isn't why Obama said it, but why didn't Rachel point out the facts. This is a blog about what Rachel says and not about what politicians say or why politicians might say things. Progressive issues would be better served by a Rachel Maddow who reports the facts than a Rachel Maddow who cheers misleading statements that obscure the facts.

      Delete
    2. Exactly Anonymous 1:27

      President Obama is a politician pushing his agenda. Maddow is (supposedly) a journalist who should be reporting the facts. Her agenda is supposed to be the truth.

      Delete
    3. "Progressive issues would be better served by a Rachel Maddow who reports the facts than a Rachel Maddow who cheers misleading statements that obscure the facts."

      I like this.

      Delete
    4. Anon 1:27 and 1:38

      " The issue isn't why Obama said it...this is a blog about what Rachel says"

      The quotes were Bob's from a post yesterday.

      "Maddow... cheers misleading statements that obscure the facts."

      "Her agenda is supposed to be the truth."

      HERE, my intellectual friends is a simple, true fact:

      "The changes in the real median earnings of men and women who worked full time, year- round between 2011 and 2012 were not statistically significant. In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398) ─ not statistically different from the 2011 ratio. The female-to-male earnings ratio has not experienced a statistically significant annual increase since 2007.

      United States Census Bureau 9/17/2013

      http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb13-165.html

      Delete
    5. "This is a blog about what Rachel says and not about what politicians say or why politicians might say things."

      Oh, so true!

      And how I yearn for the good, old days when TDH was about much more than "what Rachel says."

      Delete
    6. If you cannot understand why these posts are important, you should do us all a favor and go away.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 2:00

      I feel your pain.

      I too long for the good old days, before Al implied*
      he invented the Internet.

      * Implied: As in "Obama didn’t say that women get paid 77 cents on the dollar “for equal work.” He rather plainly implied it. But he didn’t actually say it.

      Use of the word implied allows you to say this about Obama's statement: "basically just untrue."

      In fact what Obamadid say is true. .

      Delete
    8. Go away trolls.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 1:52

      You are clearly too stupid to understand why this is nonsense. I feel kind of sorry for you... like a turtle lying on it's back that cannot get up. A fool who doesn't know that he's a fool.

      Delete
    10. It would be better if blogger said nothing but the truth.

      Delete
    11. Go away trolls.

      Delete


    12. Anon: 2:26

      I am too stupid to understand that it is nonsense?

      What nonsense?

      For the Census Bureau to report its finding that women earn 77% of what men earn, and that this is unchanged since 2007, when then Senator Hillary Clinton cited the same figure when re-introducing her
      "Paycheck Fairness Act."?

      That nonsense?

      Delete
    13. Are you too stupid to understand that juxtaposing 77% with "equal pay for equal work" creates an implication that is incorrect?

      Delete
    14. Anon. @ 2:53 PM

      I can't tell you how long I haved waited for one of the people here who are disparaging Obama's comment
      to state what you have stated.

      Delete
    15. "Are you too stupid to understand that juxtaposing 77% with "equal pay for equal work" creates an implication that is incorrect?"

      Of course not!

      I'm just smart enough to pretend that I don't understand.

      Delete
    16. Unlike Dipstick Toolbox, who couldn't guess what percentage of the gap is explained by outright discrimination, what percentage is explained by institutionnalized discrimination, and what percentage is attributable to forces of a type Somerby decries when explaining things like the gap in test scores between white and black students.

      He isn't pretending.

      Delete
  4. Right, the need is for a Rachel Maddow who treats an audience honestly and intelligently. This Rache Maddow does not do so in was that are very discouraging as in this case of the earnings of women and men.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This Rache Maddow does not do so in was that are very discouraging as in this case of the earnings of women and men."

      Now I understand why Bob has such loyal fans. He writes in their native tongue.

      Delete
    2. Correction:

      Right, the need is for a Rachel Maddow who treats an audience honestly and intelligently. This Rache Maddow does not do so in ways that are very discouraging as in this case of the earnings of women and men.

      Delete
    3. "This Rache Maddow does not do so in ways that are very discouraging . . ."

      Still doesn't say what you think it says.

      Try this: "Rachel Maddow does not do this in ways that are very encouraging . . ."

      Or better: "It is very discouraging to see how Rachel Maddow treats her audience."



      Delete
  5. the american you call lower caseJanuary 30, 2014 at 1:47 PM

    bob somerby asks,

    "Why did the TV stars play clam? You tell us! But last night, Maddow went out of her way to peddle a bogus fact."

    1.) by avoiding giving it air time, they downplayed the signifcance of it as an issue.

    2.) msnbc decided to hold fire till the facts became more discernible as they were recently burned by coming to conclusions in the martin/zimmerman case before they knew about things which would only come out in the actual trial.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Somerby: "Most of the things we know we learned in kindergarten."

    This is easily provably wrong. Yet Somerby will repeats this false claim because he knows it is what the rubes want to hear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll take you up on that. Prove it isn't true for Somerby.

      Delete
    2. This is a play on words based on the title of the bestselling book by Fulghum, Everything I Know I Learned in Kindergarten. Only a stupid troll would waste people's time with this nonsense.

      Delete
    3. How does it feel to be immune to irony?

      Delete
    4. Good morning deadrat. Let's resume our GAME.

      Does immunity from irony cure allergies to Rachel?

      KZ

      Delete
    5. "How does it feel to be immune from irony?"

      Invincible.

      Delete
    6. KZ,

      I'd guess that an immunity from irony would exacerbate an allergy to Rachel.

      Delete
    7. In fact it might make you break out in pernicious perplexity.

      KZ

      Delete
  7. Wow! The Great "77 cents on the dollar" debate rages on! Boy, what a key issue. The very fate of humankind hangs in the balance.

    Far more important than those damned low-income kids who keep walking across my lawn!

    When does this all get tied back to the "War on Gore" and the pivotal Election of Fourteen Years Ago?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps I could interest you in another blog, say, oldmanyellsatcloud.com. Go here:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ujqoc6Rzuw

      Delete
  8. "We learn a great many false facts from elites!"

    Editing note for next time, Bob.

    If it's false, it isn't a fact. If it is fact, then it isn't false. There is no such thing as a "false fact."

    Pick up a thesaurus somewhere and find the word you really should use.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. During his service in blogging Bob took the initiative to create the new vocabulary.

      Delete
  9. Deadrat, are you arguing that complaining about trolls is like shouting at clouds or are you telling the trolls that complaining about Somerby is like shouting at clouds?

    How do you suggest that we cut down on the troll traffic here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trust me. Cutting down the traffic, troll or otherwise, is the last thing Bob wants.

      Delete
    2. "How do you suggest that we cut down on the troll traffic here?"

      By you and your fellow whiners leaving and the remaining commentariat ignoring them. Like trolls, you contribute nothing.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @2:55P,

      I'm constantly amazed that people show up here to complain that TDH isn't talking about the topics they want him to. I interpreted Anonymous @2:38P as saying sarcastically that that the issue of those damn kids walking on his lawn is more important than the $.77 issue. I suspect this was a backhanded way of calling TDH an old coot, but I took him at his word and suggested he go to another blog (albeit a fictional one) more suited to his tastes.

      Sorry, I'm just not with you on the troll thing. I don't think there are that many people who are insincere in their misplaced criticisms. I think they really can't understand why TDH criticizes Maddow constantly but mostly leaves Hannity alone. And I just don't find them that disruptive.

      YMMV and evidently does.

      Delete
    4. Ah yes, actual quote:

      "Wow! The Great "77 cents on the dollar" debate rages on! Boy, what a key issue. The very fate of humankind hangs in the balance. Far more important than those damned low-income kids who keep walking across my lawn!"

      "I interpreted Anonymous @2:38P as saying sarcastically that that the issue of those damn kids walking on his lawn is more important than the $.77 issue."

      Gee, deadrat. Why did you disappear the words "low income"?

      Could it be that it was a reference to Bob's constant (and false) harping that the "media" doesn't care about "low income kids" while they are chasing stories Bob considers to be nothingburgers?

      -- Like the 14 charges the former governor of Virginia and his wife face for allegedly stuffing bribes in their pockets? And on his wrist?

      -- Like the fact that people high up on the ladder in the Christie administration ordered up humongous "traffic problems in Fort Lee" and called it a "study"? After all, on Planet Somerby, it still could be an innocent "study" with motives as pure as the driven snow.

      No, our resident media critic simply pretends that the "media" never covers such things as poverty and poor kids in their rush to cover the latest scandal, while ignoring the coverage given to the issue, the growing income inequality in this nation, and particularly on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of LBJ's "War on Poverty" State of the Union address.

      For example, Chris Hayes devoted an entire hour to it, with Maria Shriver, daughter of the man put in charge of the "War on Poverty" at his side. The hated Rachel Maddow devoted several segments to it. The hated NYT discussed it.

      Even with Obama's SOTU, does Bob glom onto his call for a big increase in the minimum wage, which will certainly help "low-income kids"?

      Nope, he grabs onto an old bone and chews on it some more, not for what Obama said, but for what he "clearly implied."

      Face it. Low-income kids mean nothing more to Somerby than another club to beat his favorite targets with. And he still can't hit the pinata.

      Delete
    5. By the way, deadrat, I'll save you the trouble of typing your usual response yourself.

      "Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well if you feel that way, then why are you still here?"

      There. Just copy and paste it.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous @10:00A,

      OK, you set 'em up. I'll knock 'em down:

      I left out "low income" because it doesn't make any difference. Your twin @2:55P is whining about the topics covered by TDH. If the topics covered are so worthless, he should find a blog more to his liking. Is the reference to TDH's constant (and correct) harping that some of the people he criticizes (not the "media") don't care enough about "low income kids" to report correctly or at all on their education? I suppose but I'm having trouble connecting low income kids on the commenter's own lawn to TDH's concerns with low income kids in school.

      - TDH doesn't think that $150K in gifts to the former governor of Virginia is a big deal. It's not illegal under Virginia law, and it's hard to see that the donor actually got anything in return. I happen not to agree with TDH, but thanks for making my point for me. If your twin wants to read a blog about political malfeasance and political malfeasants, he should find one.

      - Nobody, including TDH, thinks the traffic mess in Fort Lee was innocent. By no stretch of the imagination were the lane closings part of a standard and appropriately-designed traffic study. TDH notes that the idiots' claims that they collected and analyzed data may turn out to be a ruse or a hoax. No one knows that their motives were, as TDH and even Darlin' Rachel note. TDH thinks Bridgegate is way over-hyped. I happen not to agree with TDH, but thanks for making my point for me. If your twin wants to read a blog dedicated to scandal in officialdom, he should find one.

      "Our resident critic" doesn't pretend anything about abstractions like the "media" without holding up particular individuals to scrutiny. Yes, there was coverage of poverty on the semicentennial year of LBJ's SOTU address. We'll wait another fifty before there's much more. Krugman covers income inequality, and TDH gives him credit for it. Not good enough for you? Yes, there's constant coverage of education, and most of it is worthless. If your twin wants to read a blog dedicated to the successes of contemporary journalism, he should find one.

      TDH isn't a blog about Presidential policy. It's about how we discuss issues, and particularly journalists' roles in that discussion. If you and your twin want to read a blog dedicated to some other topic, you both should find one.

      Face it. You haven't got the slightest idea what low-income kids mean to Somerby. And you have no way of finding out. Why not engage with what he writes?

      Delete
    7. Yeah, I saw your snarky attempt at a pre-emptive strike, but I posted my usual response anyway.

      And you still haven't answered the question. What the fuck are you doing reading and commenting on a blog that you think addresses the wrong questions?

      Look, I can't stand Darlin' Rachel, and I only listen to the segments that TDH criticizes, but I think it's fair commentary to defend her when TDH is wrong about her and even to note that he's got some, shall we way inappropriate? emotion invested in his attacks. The same with KZ from the galaxy Schizodromeda when he attempts to show how TDH has got his test score data wrong. (Although I admit I can't follow any of it.) But I think it's absurd to come here and complain that TDH doesn't write enough about Christie and McDonnell.

      I'll put it this way. I understand the complaint that TDH can't hit the piñata. What I don't understand is complaining that he's not swinging for the chandelier.

      Delete
  10. Why Obama is President and Al Gore is But an Ex-VP

    Gore:

    Growing prosperity is important, but making sure that all share in it is also critical. For too long, men and women have seen vast disparity in their earnings. Although the gap has closed in the last decades, the typical woman still earns only 73 percent of what the typical man earns.

    It is time to close that gap.This gap reflects not just continued discrimination, but also the fact that fewer women go into the highest paying occupations. As a nation, we must tackle both problems.

    Al Gore 2000

    Obama:

    Now today, women make up about half our workforce, but they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong. And in 2014, it's an embarrassment. Women deserve equal pay for equal work.

    Barack Obama 2014

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too bad Bob wasn't around in 2000 to correct that horrible, misleading Al Gore statement, lest Gore's "rubes" were led astray.

      Delete
    2. You are a class A A-hole Troll at 5:31. And so is
      Troll at 3:02. The press has a lot invested in making a Black President succeed.

      When Al Gore said that in 2000 they accused him of lactating and Alpha Male Wannabe syndrome. Plus
      he was right because it was 14 years ago.

      Delete
    3. I have never gone to the polls thinking I was voting for a more qualified candidate to be president than the day I voted for Al Gore.

      But . . . those two passages certainly demonstrate the difference between a wonk and an orator.

      Delete


  11. OMB (Let's Count With the Count (King Actually))

    BOB likes numbers. BOB likes to count. BOB counts words in columns and articles. BOB counts comments on other blogs.

    BOB in this post says the President of the United States and Rachel Maddow said misleading things about the Wage Gap
    between men and women. He implied they are liars.

    Let's do something BOB likes. Let's count.

    First let's count the different ways BOB characterized those remarks today in an effort to not say the word "lying."

    3 Bogus
    2 Untrue (Basically and Isn't)
    2 Old (Hoary and Famous)
    4 Misled or Mislead (Grossly 1)
    2 Crap (Salted and Giant Pile of)

    That is thirteen ways or Bob to avoid saying Maddow and/or Obama
    are lying about a statistical fact in a post in which he never once demonstrates a single thing they said is untrue. Not one.

    This is a huge achievement. Correct me if I didn't get this straight.
    Coming up we'll look at how many times BOB lied in this and the previous post on the same topic. Thats next. So don't go away. Watch this space.

    KZ


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having run out of sleep aids, we anxiously await your further contributions.

      Delete
    2. KZ:

      I would prefer not to.

      Delete
    3. "Crap" not once but twice?

      Oh, poor Malala. How quickly she is forgotten!

      Delete
    4. It's like I've already read it, a case of déjà on le verra.

      Delete
  12. Rachael earns 777% more than Bob.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bob says: "In our view, Maddow’s rather large impulse toward deception is the most fascinating part of her makeup. "

    I think her blatant pilfering of Jon Stewart's act is fascinating too - and super embarrassing and hard to watch because she does it so poorly.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Does anyone here believe women make 77% of what men do for equal work?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Conversely, do any TDH readers think there is no wage discrimination based on gender?

      Delete
    2. why do you ask that? i don't get it.

      Delete
  15. why do you ask that? i don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. OMB ( Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics)

    People are loathe to call others liars. That is why some dance around the word. It is especially hard to call someone a liar when they have said something that is true. So other words, which imply the same thing, are used.

    Here we are confronted with a post full of different words used to describe a statement that is true as "grossly misleading" among other things because of an implication assigned to it by the author of the post.

    The author wrote on the same topic just yesterday. We will use some of his colorful vocabulary to assess statements he made. If we make a judgement based on our interpretation of the implications of the meaning of his statement we will highlight that fact. Because of space limitations per comment, we may break this into two or three parts.

    Bob Somerby: The State of the Union is: Atomized! 1/29/14

    1) "If we might borrow from Kessler’s earlier language, “Obama carefully did not say” that women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for equal work.

    True.

    Clearly he didn't say it.

    2) Carefully, he didn’t say that. But plainly, that’s what he implied.

    Plainly Misleading.

    If you state as fact twice that the man is careful in what he did not say, then you imply he took care in what he did say. Careful speakers don't imply. You can't have it both ways. Plainly.

    3) Also, women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work! Obama said it.

    Grossly Misleading. If this is true, then 1) is false. The author, knowing 1) and 3) are in direct conflict may be implying he is joking, but since everything in between statement 2) and 3) is designed to make you think 1) actually implies 2), he is playing some for bigger fools than the President. Based on some of the commentary to this post, we think the latter could be plausible.

    Up Next:

    Bob Somerby: We Learn a Great Many False Facts From Elites
    1/30/14

    Warning. Salted, Unsalted, & Gynormous piles of crap ahead.

    Watch this space!

    KZ


    ReplyDelete
  17. kz - do you believe women make 77% of what men do for equal work?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know that in 2012 the Census Bureau found that women working full time on average earn 77% of what men working full time earn on average.

      I believe women earn less than men. I believe when two workers are not paid equally for the same work and they are of the opposite sex, a majority of the time you will find it is the woman who is paid less. A vast majority of the time.

      I also know there is no answer to the question; What is the difference between the salaries of women and men doing equal work ?

      KZ

      Thanks for asking. Feel free to share your beliefs.

      Delete
  18. OMB ( Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics)

    Part 2

    Bob Somerby: We Learn a Great Many False Facts From Elites
    1/30/14

    1) As we noted yesterday, Obama didn’t say that women get paid 77 cents on the dollar “for equal work.” He rather plainly implied it. But he didn’t actually say it.

    Pile of Crap.

    Bob's combining into one introduction one of his true statements
    (Obama didn't say it), with a misleading statement (he implied it)
    with weasel words (didn't actually.) What turrns this into a Pile of Crap is that Bob lost his notes where he does falsely say Obama said exactly that:

    Also, women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work! Obama said it.

    Did BOB offer this in jest? Can his "context" ferreting and inventing friends suggest the nature of this jocularity? Is it snark? We see that everything BOB used to lead up to this statement was designed to get people to think Obama did say it, and several of his commenters, including the first one, concluded Obama said just that. Why do commenters matter? Because when BOB went on a major tear at Maddow on this issue back in 2012, one of the reasons BOB used to say Maddow had "implied" the pay gap was for equal work was because Wolff Blitzer interpreted her remarks that way. If the BOB can attribute Wolff's confusion to Maddow, we can attribute BOB's readers' confusion to BOB. Equal blame for equal misleading.

    2) Also note this: Maddow never said that Obama called for “equal pay for equal work.” She merely said, two separate times, that he had called for “equal pay for women.”

    Partly True Partly Whopper.

    Maddow never said what Obama did say, "equal pay for equal work," but she also didn't say he "called for 'equal pay for women' " twice.
    Why should her slightly different language matter? Because BOB uses it to set up the attack on Maddow which will follow, harkening back to a multi post flambe from May, 2012. He is trying to make her insignificant choice of words here sell his point she knows she is misleading the rubes.

    3) What is wrong with the famous old claim about the 77 cents? It isn’t a measure of discrimination, as Obama and Maddow both know. It isn’t a measure of “equal pay for equal work.”

    Well Salted Pile of Crap with a Tiny Turd of Truth

    It is not a claim. It is a fact. A US Census Bureau measure of annual median income. It is not a measure of equal pay for equal work, but it does, in part, reflect gender based pay discrimination which is real. Neither Obama or Maddow claimed it to be either, however. It isn't an old claim. The 77% measure first appeared based on Census data in 2007. Maybe it seems old, because that has been the percentage full time working women earn compared to men since that year. It hasn't improved, which may be why it is still a salient point which resonates with women voters. It was 72 cents when Al Gore used it in 2000 with nary a peep from BOB, but nary a Rachel Maddow in sight, either.

    Finally, since it is not a claim, but a fact, and since neither Obama or Maddow stated it as anything other than a fact, what is "wrong" with it? BOB doesn't say. Because he is using it dishonestly to imply dishonesty in others.

    Coming: Bogus Whores and Hoary Bores






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. KZ, it is also quite revealing to me how Somerby continues to bend this whole "implies" vs. "said" game to fit his narrative.

      For instance, in the whole "During my service in Congress, I took the initiative to create the Internet" thing, we are not allowed to infer what his favorite ex-roomate was saying. We must stick only to the actual words.

      In this case, never mind what Obama actually said, because he knows he can't argue against that. Let's go instead with what Obama "clearly implies."

      Delete
    2. You people are very dumb.

      Delete
    3. One man's inference is another woman's implication.

      Of course you're "allowed" to infer what Gore meant. In fact, you have to. What you're not "allowed" to do is claim an illogical inference. We know that Gore was a Senator, and he even prefaces his claim with "During my service in Congress." No reasonable person interprets the word "create" in this context to mean that Gore wrote the protocol specs or the code to implement them.

      Snopes.com said it best when they noted that if Eisenhower had said that he created the Interstate Highway system, no one would claim that he meant that he'd spent time digging ditches.

      Obama said two things. Firstly, "Women make $.77 for every dollar a man earns." Regardless of the number problems in the grammar of this sentence, it's reasonable to interpret it to mean that the median income for women is 77% of the median income for men. Which is true. Secondly, "Women deserve equal pay for equal work." If you're against discrimination by sex, then this is also true. Given the juxtaposition, would any reasonable people conclude that in every comparable category of work, women receive only 77% of what their male colleagues earn? Or even, say, 77% plus or minus 10%? Those are certainly ways to make the first statement true.

      Delete
  19. KZ - that's all you got? Titanically lame!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And you have nothing at all. Not even an identity.

      KZ


      Delete
  20. KZ - Good God old chap you wasted a lot of time on this yesterday. Do what you want but I would suggest putting your efforts into something that matters, something that you are better at.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " ... I would suggest putting your efforts into something that matters, something that you are better at."

      Waltzing with angels on pins?

      Delete
    2. that's what he/she is doing now.

      Delete
  21. OMB ( Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics)

    Part 2

    Bob Somerby: We Learn a Great Many False Facts From Elites
    1/30/14

    4) Back in April 2012, Maddow may not have understood that. She went on Meet the Press and asserted the hoary old claim—and found herself contradicted by a Republican strategist.

    Partly True!

    Since we can't get into Maddow's mind any more than BOB, we just don't know what Maddow understood in April, 2012. We refer readers back to his series beginning in May, 2012 to let them judge how many times he claimed mind reading ability. While have already dealt with the "claim" vs. "fact" problem Somerby has, we applaud his new choice of adjective. We suggest he use it again
    when describing female writers he can not call "youngish" scribes.
    We would have also used "interrupted" rather than contradicted to describe what happened when Maddow began to use the statistic without stating or implying it measured descrimination or pay equity.
    She hadn't gotten past "77 cents" when the Republican on the program began a long series of interruptions.

    5) Thirty-six hours later, on her own show, Maddow was pretending that she still didn’t understand why she had been challenged. Incredibly, she even said she had spent a lot of time that day trying to puzzle it out.

    What a giant pile of crap!


    NO BOB, WHAT A GYNORMOUS PIECE OF CRAP!!!

    BOB has to disappeared most of what Maddow said on her show, MTP and his multiple postings to get to this condensed version. First, Maddow didn't try and figure out why she was challenged. She was interrupted on Meet The Press, and throughout the "conversation" she attempted to get Alex Castellano, the Republican political consultant who repeatedly interrupted her, to state whether women were being paid or earning less than men. Castellanos kept trying to detour the conversatyion into the many statistical nooks and crannies of this issue, and Maddow kept trying to get him to answer the simple question about the fact she was stating when he first interrupted her. Do women earn less than men? Finally he said no. It is that point with which she began her program. She wasn't trying to understand why she was interrupted. She was trying to understand why Republicans deny even the simple fact that the pay gap exists and is indicative in and of itself that there is discrimination. Transcipts of both programs are linkled below.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47221693/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/april-ed-gillespie-robert-gibbs-cathy-mcmorris-rodgers-hilary-rosen-alex-castellanos-rachel-maddow/

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47355994/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/

    5) It’s hard to measure the amount of the gap which results from discrimination, but no expert in the field thinks it’s 23 cents.

    True.

    Unfortunately BOB used the lowest figure he could find, 5% when he knows, from quoting the individual who appeared on Mddow's show almost two years ago, that some experts have pegged it as high as 11.5%. Does pay discrimination exist? We won't say we just don't know. Are workplace measures which seemingly explain part of the 23% gap really measures of benign choices made by "mommies who work less hours and/or lose seniority," or instituional workplace rules like those alluded to by the President right after his "equal pay for equal work" remarks, which BOB chose to completely disappear?

    KZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm going to have to award KZ the ears and the tail on this one.

      On MTP, Maddow simply asserted a fact: the BLS reports that the median income for women is 77% of the median income for men. Before she could discuss policy issues associated with this gap, she was interrupted by a Republican operative, who eventually denied that the statistic was correct. This was part of the Republican strategy to accuse Democrats of wanting to "divide the nation" whenever Democrats point out that the nation is divided, especially into the haves and the have-nots and especially by Republican policies.

      In all fairness, her Republican opponent really didn't mean to deny the statistic but to deny that it had any meaning within the political forum, and Darlin' Rachel did a pretty good job of trying to show how wrong-headed that was. Her "264 out of 265 professions agree that women are paid less" wasn't quite sharp enough of an analysis for me, but I'd say it did the trick to rebut the claim that women's pay is an issue that can be explained away

      To be fair to TDH, I think the 5% figure he uses is from the BLS. The IWPR might have a higher figure, but they might not be disinterested.

      I loved this exchange on MTP:

      <quote>
      ALEX CASTELLANOS:
      It's policy.  And I love how passionate you are.  I wish you are as right about what you're saying as you are passionate about it.  I really do.
      RACHEL MADDOW:
      That's really condescending.
      </quote>

      If only he'd said she was so pretty when she was mad. You can just hear Castellanos being prepped for his appearance on MTP by his boss: "Be really, really patronizing. Women love that kind of thing. I should know; I've been married four times."

      Delete
    2. Yes, deadrat, when BOB went bottom feeding for the lowest avalble figure he picked one from a report written by an outside contractor and the report contained a foreword for the Bush Deputy Asst. Secy. of Labor who wrote:

      Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

      It was issued days before the Obama inauguration, which passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act within a few weeks after that.

      http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

      BOB's position on this issue has been to attack Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. He has sided with the Bush administration, almost the unanimous Republican caucus in Congress, Alex Castellano, whose work as a politcal consultant started with those friends who care about black kids, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. In the course of his work on this issue BOB has twice referred to Kay Hymowitz as an expert on gender pay gap issues. She is in fact a Manhattan Institute employee with a Master's Degree in English Literature who is best know for her book: "Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys"

      KZ

      Delete
    3. KZ,

      Do you think that CONSAD should not be using the equation

      ln (wage) = α + β ● X + ε

      for their regression analysis?

      The administration of the WPE is always suspect for anything they did. A few minutes spent with the google claims that the CONSAD report included data from part-time workers, when the traditional approach (which gets our traditional statistic) is to use full-time workers only. If that's true, then the apple doesn't compare to the oranges.

      I find three references to Kay Hymowitz in the blog entries, and each time she's given the oxymoronic epithet "conservative expert." TDH names her this year to praise Chris Hayes for actually having on someone who challenged the standard recitation, while noting that Hayes was unprepared to actually deal with the assertions of his "expert." I, myself, wouldn't believe a word Hymowitz says, but then I'm an ad hominem kind of guy.

      TDH claims that Hymowitz' number (20% of the gap, or $.04-$.05 on the dollar) is in line with Maddow's expert, Hartmann, but that's not quite true. Hartmann says the number is in line with a GAO report but says that other studies show up to 50% of the gap, or $.12-$.13 on the dollar.

      TDH does note that it hard to measure the amount of the gap due to discrimination, but he should have given the range, not the lowest figure. The bull has only two ears and one tail, though.

      That said, you have to remember that TDH's script is challenging script. His challenge does not mean that he's "sided" with the devil when the devil challenges the same script.

      Delete
  22. nike shoes, Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Max,Cheap Free Run Shoes,nike shoes,nike outlet,nike factory,nike store,nike factory outlet,nike outlet store,cheap nike shoes,nike sneakers, toms outlet, toms outlet,tom shoes,toms shoes outlet,tom shoes,toms wedges,cheap toms,toms.com, air jordan, air jordan,jordan shoes,cheap jordans,air jordans,jordan retro,air jordan shoes,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan retro, cheap jordans, cheap jordans,cheap jordan shoes,cheap jordan,cheap jordans for sale,jordans for cheap,jordan shoes,jordans,air jordan,jordan retro,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,air jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes,air jordan retro, jordan retro, jordan retro,jordan shoes,air jordan,air jordans,retro jordans,air jordan retro,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,cheap jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes, air max 90, air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 95,air max 2014,air max 2013,air max 1,nike air max,air max,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, air max 95, air max 95,nike air max 95,air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 2013,nike air max,air max,air max 2014,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, nike free 5.0, nike free 5.0, nike free trainer 5.0,nike free run 5.0,free running 2,nike free run,nike free,free running,nike running shoes,nike free trainer,free runs,free run 5.0, omega watches, omega watches,omega watch,replica watches,rolex watches,replica omega watches,rolex,watches for men,watches for women,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex, ralph lauren outlet

    ReplyDelete
  23. ralph lauren outlet,ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren outlet,polo ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren,ralph lauren,polo ralph,polo shirts,ralphlauren.com,polo outlet,ralph lauren polo, oakley sunglass, oakley sunglasses,cheap oakley,cheap oakley sunglasses,oakley sunglasses cheap,oakley outlet,oakley sunglasses outlet,oakley vault,oakleys,oakley.com,sunglasses outlet,cheap sunglasses,oakley prescription glasses,fake oakleys,oakley glasses,oakley store,fake oakley,oakley sale,cheap oakleys,discount oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, Ray Ban Sunglasses,Ray Ban Outlet,Ray Ban Sale,Cheap Ray Bans,Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses,ray ban sunglasses outlet,ray ban,rayban,ray bans,ray-ban,raybans,ray ban wayfarer,ray-ban sunglasses,raybans.com,rayban sunglasses,cheap ray ban, burberry, burberry,burberry outlet,burberry outlet online,burberry factory outlet,burberry sale,burberry handbags, chanel bags, chanel bags,chanel handbags,chanel sunglasses,chanel outlet,chanel purses,chanel handbags official site, coach outlet store, coach outlet,coach outlet store,coach outlet store online,coach outlet stores,coach factory outlet,coach factory,coach factory online,coach factory outlet online,coach outlet online, chaussures louboutin, louboutin,louboutin pas cher,christian louboutin,louboutin chaussures,louboutin soldes,chaussure louboutin,chaussures louboutin,chaussure louboutin pas cher,louboutin france, sac michael kors, michael kors,sac michael kors,michael kors sac,michael kors pas cher,sac michael kors pas cher,michael kors france, north face outlet, north face outlet,the north face,north face,the north face outlet,north face jackets,north face jackets clearance,northface, yoga pants, yoga pants,lululemon,lululemon outlet,lululemon athletica,lululemon addict,lulu lemon,lulu.com,lululemon.com, beats by dre

    ReplyDelete
  24. nike shoes, Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Max,Cheap Free Run Shoes,nike shoes,nike outlet,nike factory,nike store,nike factory outlet,nike outlet store,cheap nike shoes,nike sneakers, toms outlet, toms outlet,tom shoes,toms shoes outlet,tom shoes,toms wedges,cheap toms,toms.com, air jordan, air jordan,jordan shoes,cheap jordans,air jordans,jordan retro,air jordan shoes,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan retro, cheap jordans, cheap jordans,cheap jordan shoes,cheap jordan,cheap jordans for sale,jordans for cheap,jordan shoes,jordans,air jordan,jordan retro,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,air jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes,air jordan retro, jordan retro, jordan retro,jordan shoes,air jordan,air jordans,retro jordans,air jordan retro,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,cheap jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes, air max 90, air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 95,air max 2014,air max 2013,air max 1,nike air max,air max,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, air max 95, air max 95,nike air max 95,air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 2013,nike air max,air max,air max 2014,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, nike free 5.0, nike free 5.0, nike free trainer 5.0,nike free run 5.0,free running 2,nike free run,nike free,free running,nike running shoes,nike free trainer,free runs,free run 5.0, omega watches, omega watches,omega watch,replica watches,rolex watches,replica omega watches,rolex,watches for men,watches for women,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex, ralph lauren outlet, ralph lauren outlet,ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren outlet,polo ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren,ralph lauren,polo ralph,polo shirts,ralphlauren.com,polo outlet,ralph lauren polo, oakley sunglass, thomas sabo

    ReplyDelete
  25. oakley sunglasses,cheap oakley,cheap oakley sunglasses,oakley sunglasses cheap,oakley outlet,oakley sunglasses outlet,oakley vault,oakleys,oakley.com,sunglasses outlet,cheap sunglasses,oakley prescription glasses,fake oakleys,oakley glasses,oakley store,fake oakley,oakley sale,cheap oakleys,discount oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, Ray Ban Sunglasses,Ray Ban Outlet,Ray Ban Sale,Cheap Ray Bans,Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses,ray ban sunglasses outlet,ray ban,rayban,ray bans,ray-ban,raybans,ray ban wayfarer,ray-ban sunglasses,raybans.com,rayban sunglasses,cheap ray ban, burberry, burberry,burberry outlet,burberry outlet online,burberry factory outlet,burberry sale,burberry handbags, chanel bags, chanel bags,chanel handbags,chanel sunglasses,chanel outlet,chanel purses,chanel handbags official site, coach outlet store, coach outlet,coach outlet store,coach outlet store online,coach outlet stores,coach factory outlet,coach factory,coach factory online,coach factory outlet online,coach outlet online, chaussures louboutin, louboutin,louboutin pas cher,christian louboutin,louboutin chaussures,louboutin soldes,chaussure louboutin,chaussures louboutin,chaussure louboutin pas cher,louboutin france, sac michael kors, michael kors,sac michael kors,michael kors sac,michael kors pas cher,sac michael kors pas cher,michael kors france, north face outlet, north face outlet,the north face,north face,the north face outlet,north face jackets,north face jackets clearance,northface, yoga pants, yoga pants,lululemon,lululemon outlet,lululemon athletica,lululemon addict,lulu lemon,lulu.com,lululemon.com, beats by dre, beats by dre,beats headphones,beats audio,beats by dr dre,beats by dre headphones,dr dre,dre beats,beats by dr,dr dre beats,dre headphones,beats by dr. dre,cheap beats, ferragamo, ferragamo,salvatore ferragamo,ferragamo shoes,ferragamo outlet,salvatore ferragamo outlet,ferragamo belts,ferragamo belt,ferragamo outlet, nike blazer, nike blazer,blazer nike,nike blazer pas cher,Chaussures Nike Blazer,Nike Blazer Femme, nike air force, swarovski crystal, swarovski

    ReplyDelete