tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post442975189482411735..comments2024-03-28T18:09:42.367-04:00Comments on the daily howler: We learn a great many false facts from elites!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-53936787128746110472019-11-06T00:17:00.441-05:002019-11-06T00:17:00.441-05:00the best article blog iam ever seen...
good job bt...the best article blog iam ever seen...<br />good job btw.and let me give my best comment on your blog.<br />thx before..^^<br /><a title="Ubola88 Agen Judi Bola Online Terpercaya" href="http://162.212.158.166/" rel="nofollow">agen judi bola</a><br /><a title="Agen Bandarqq Online" href="http://162.212.158.131/" rel="nofollow">Agen Bandarqq Online</a><br /><a href="https://bandarqonline.best/wongqq-agen-dominoqq-online-pkv-games-pro-indonesia/" alt="wongqq" rel="nofollow">agen dominoqq</a><br /><a href="http://www.swarovski-uk.me.uk/daftar-situs-bandaq-online/" alt="WongQQ" rel="nofollow">bandarq online</a><br /><a href="https://bandarqonline.best/wongqq-agen-bandarq-online-pkv-games-terpercaya/" alt="wongqq" rel="nofollow">agen bandarq</a>Bangdominohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01129214545406456065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-32950498413389458522017-05-23T05:42:05.667-04:002017-05-23T05:42:05.667-04:00valentino shoes
michael kors uk
michael kors handb...<a href="http://www.redvalentino.in.net" rel="nofollow"><strong>valentino shoes</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.michaelkorshandbags.me.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>michael kors uk</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.michaelkors-handbags.org.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>michael kors handbags</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.uggs-onsale.eu.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>ugg boots</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.nikestoreuk.com.co" rel="nofollow"><strong>nike store uk</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.uggs-forcheap.in.net" rel="nofollow"><strong>ugg boots</strong></a><br /><a href="http://washingtonredskins.jerseyscheap.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>washington redskins jerseys</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.edhardyuk.me.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy uk</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.polo-outlets.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>polo ralph lauren outlet</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.nike-trainers.com.co" rel="nofollow"><strong>nike trainers</strong></a><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15852402536415399775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-58638256000782266672015-10-18T06:38:46.801-04:002015-10-18T06:38:46.801-04:00coach factory coach factory outlet coach factory o...<a href="http://www.coachfactoryoutletonlinestoresinc.com/" title="coach factory" rel="nofollow"><strong>coach factory</strong></a> <a href="http://www.coachfactoryoutletonlinestoresinc.com/" title="coach factory outlet" rel="nofollow"><strong>coach factory outlet</strong></a> <a href="http://www.coachfactoryoutletonlinestoresinc.com/" title="coach factory online" rel="nofollow"><strong>coach factory online</strong></a> <a href="http://www.coachfactoryoutletonlinestoresinc.com/" title="coach outlet store online" rel="nofollow"><strong>coach outlet store online</strong></a> <a href="http://www.coachfactoryoutletonlinestoresinc.com/" title="coach outlet online coach factory outlet" rel="nofollow"><strong>coach outlet online coach factory outlet</strong></a> <a href="http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinenyc.com/" title="coach outlet" rel="nofollow"><strong>coach outlet</strong></a> <a href="http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinenyc.com/" title="coach outlet stores" rel="nofollow"><strong>coach outlet stores</strong></a> <a href="http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinenyc.com/" title="coach outlet online" rel="nofollow"><strong>coach outlet online</strong></a> <a href="http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinenyc.com/" title="coach outlet store online" rel="nofollow"><strong>coach outlet store online</strong></a> <a href="http://www.coachoutletstoreonlinenyc.com/" title="coach outlet online coach factory outlet" rel="nofollow"><strong>coach outlet online coach factory outlet</strong></a> <a href="http://www.redbottomshoesforwomenonsale.com/" title="Red Bottoms" rel="nofollow"><strong>Red Bottoms</strong></a> <a href="http://www.redbottomshoesforwomenonsale.com/" title="Red Bottom Shoes For Women" rel="nofollow"><strong>Red Bottom Shoes For Women</strong></a> <a href="http://www.redbottomshoesforwomenonsale.com/" title="Red Bottom Shoes" rel="nofollow"><strong>Red Bottom Shoes</strong></a> <a href="http://www.redbottomshoesforwomenonsale.com/" title="Red Bottom Heels" rel="nofollow"><strong>Red Bottom Heels</strong></a> <a href="http://www.redbottomshoeschristianlouboutininc.com/" title="Red Bottom Shoes For Women" rel="nofollow"><strong>Red Bottom Shoes For Women</strong></a> <a href="http://www.redbottomshoeschristianlouboutininc.com/" title="Red Bottom Shoes" rel="nofollow"><strong>Red Bottom Shoes</strong></a> <a href="http://www.redbottomshoeschristianlouboutininc.com/" title="christian louboutin" rel="nofollow"><strong>christian louboutin</strong></a> <a href="http://www.redbottomshoeschristianlouboutininc.com/" title="christian louboutin sale" rel="nofollow"><strong>christian louboutin sale</strong></a> <a href="http://www.redbottomshoeschristianlouboutininc.com/" title="christian louboutin shoes" rel="nofollow"><strong>christian louboutin shoes</strong></a> <a href="http://www.redbottomshoeschristianlouboutininc.com/" title="christian louboutin outlet" rel="nofollow"><strong>christian louboutin outlet</strong></a> <a href="http://www.redbottomshoeschristianlouboutininc.com/" title="louboutin outlet" rel="nofollow"><strong>louboutin outlet</strong></a> <a href="http://www.fitflopssandalsonsale.com/" title="fitflops" rel="nofollow"><strong>fitflops</strong></a> <a href="http://www.fitflopssandalsonsale.com/" title="fitflop sale" rel="nofollow"><strong>fitflop sale</strong></a> <a href="http://www.fitflopssandalsonsale.com/" title="fitflops clearance" rel="nofollow"><strong>fitflops clearance</strong></a> <a href="http://www.fitflopssandalsonsale.com/" title="fitflops on sale" rel="nofollow"><strong>fitflops on sale</strong></a> <a href="http://www.fitflopssandalsonsale.com/" title="fitflops sale" rel="nofollow"><strong>fitflops sale</strong></a> <a href="http://www.fitflopssandalsonsale.com/" title="fitflop usa" rel="nofollow"><strong>fitflop usa</strong></a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00440261967887444918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-5322204731954489472014-02-01T04:06:38.300-05:002014-02-01T04:06:38.300-05:00KZ,
Do you think that CONSAD should not be using ...KZ,<br /><br />Do you think that CONSAD should not be using the equation<br /><br /> ln (wage) = α + β ● X + ε<br /><br />for their regression analysis?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-11192137239329390342014-02-01T00:32:53.315-05:002014-02-01T00:32:53.315-05:00Yes, deadrat, when BOB went bottom feeding for the...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:<br /><br />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."<br /><br />It was issued days before the Obama inauguration, which passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act within a few weeks after that.<br /><br />http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf<br /><br />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"<br /><br />KZ Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-31100907352216115292014-02-01T00:08:53.038-05:002014-02-01T00:08:53.038-05:00I know that in 2012 the Census Bureau found that w...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I also know there is no answer to the question; What is the difference between the salaries of women and men doing equal work ?<br /><br />KZ<br /><br />Thanks for asking. Feel free to share your beliefs. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-2937553087650344592014-02-01T00:04:57.204-05:002014-02-01T00:04:57.204-05:00I'm going to have to award KZ the ears and the...I'm going to have to award KZ the ears and the tail on this one.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I loved this exchange on MTP:<br /><br /><quote><br />ALEX CASTELLANOS:<br />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.<br />RACHEL MADDOW:<br />That's really condescending.<br /></quote><br /><br />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."<br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-44075951280561878112014-01-31T18:16:09.408-05:002014-01-31T18:16:09.408-05:00And you have nothing at all. Not even an identity...And you have nothing at all. Not even an identity.<br /><br />KZ<br /><br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-33278826840638520022014-01-31T18:01:40.875-05:002014-01-31T18:01:40.875-05:00OMB ( Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics)
Part 2
B...OMB ( Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics)<br /><br />Part 2<br /><br />Bob Somerby: We Learn a Great Many False Facts From Elites<br />1/30/14<br /><br /><strong>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.</strong><br /><br />Partly True! <br /><br />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<br />when describing female writers he can not call "youngish" scribes.<br />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.<br />She hadn't gotten past "77 cents" when the Republican on the program began a long series of interruptions.<br /><br /><strong>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.<br /><br />What a giant pile of crap!</strong> <br /><br /><strong>NO BOB, WHAT A GYNORMOUS PIECE OF CRAP!!!</strong><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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/<br /><br />http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47355994/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/<br /><br /><strong> 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.</strong><br /><br />True. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />KZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-72010032515863636112014-01-31T15:57:24.436-05:002014-01-31T15:57:24.436-05:00One man's inference is another woman's im...One man's inference is another woman's implication.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-54036060779964243292014-01-31T14:14:11.203-05:002014-01-31T14:14:11.203-05:00Yeah, I saw your snarky attempt at a pre-emptive s...Yeah, I saw your snarky attempt at a pre-emptive strike, but I posted my usual response anyway.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-51734960239707525282014-01-31T13:57:07.446-05:002014-01-31T13:57:07.446-05:00Anonymous @10:00A,
OK, you set 'em up. I'...Anonymous @10:00A,<br /><br />OK, you set 'em up. I'll knock 'em down:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />- 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.<br /><br />- 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.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-74529961202594495582014-01-31T11:47:45.525-05:002014-01-31T11:47:45.525-05:00*waylon**waylon*Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-48899317965390372282014-01-31T11:47:11.357-05:002014-01-31T11:47:11.357-05:00That's not what Watkins was saying.That's not what Watkins was saying. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-81405012084706276732014-01-31T11:27:06.479-05:002014-01-31T11:27:06.479-05:00Just because we can think up all sorts of reasons ...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. <br /><br />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).<br /><br />It is now 77 cents. Not much progress in 14 years is it?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />It might not close the gap entirely, but it is certainly something government can do about it.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Those nuts will be harder to crack.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-52337022273318019322014-01-31T11:15:28.274-05:002014-01-31T11:15:28.274-05:00that's what he/she is doing now.that's what he/she is doing now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-49233039064088716142014-01-31T10:04:21.480-05:002014-01-31T10:04:21.480-05:00By the way, deadrat, I'll save you the trouble...By the way, deadrat, I'll save you the trouble of typing your usual response yourself.<br /><br />"Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well if you feel that way, then why are you still here?"<br /><br />There. Just copy and paste it.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-10933590176728116852014-01-31T10:00:07.813-05:002014-01-31T10:00:07.813-05:00Ah yes, actual quote:
"Wow! The Great "...Ah yes, actual quote:<br /><br />"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!"<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Gee, deadrat. Why did you disappear the words "low income"?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />-- Like the 14 charges the former governor of Virginia and his wife face for allegedly stuffing bribes in their pockets? And on his wrist?<br /><br />-- 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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"? <br /><br />Nope, he grabs onto an old bone and chews on it some more, not for what Obama said, but for what he "clearly implied."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-8161170474876892312014-01-31T09:28:57.507-05:002014-01-31T09:28:57.507-05:00" ... I would suggest putting your efforts in..." ... I would suggest putting your efforts into something that matters, something that you are better at."<br /><br />Waltzing with angels on pins?<br />CeceliaMchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16017255006204800193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-34083560655557603172014-01-31T09:01:47.381-05:002014-01-31T09:01:47.381-05:00KZ - Good God old chap you wasted a lot of time on...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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-89612236611668021542014-01-31T08:46:30.826-05:002014-01-31T08:46:30.826-05:00I have never gone to the polls thinking I was voti...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.<br /><br />But . . . those two passages certainly demonstrate the difference between a wonk and an orator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-87472252308390227112014-01-31T08:41:23.544-05:002014-01-31T08:41:23.544-05:00KZ, it is also quite revealing to me how Somerby c...KZ, it is also quite revealing to me how Somerby continues to bend this whole "implies" vs. "said" game to fit his narrative.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-4158715919192203222014-01-31T08:26:15.008-05:002014-01-31T08:26:15.008-05:00Waylon, do you have any evidence that shows that w...Waylon, do you have any evidence that shows that women work 23 percent fewer hours than men? Or that it is by their chioce?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-87193896301655180002014-01-31T07:45:47.434-05:002014-01-31T07:45:47.434-05:00KZ - that's all you got? Titanically lame!KZ - that's all you got? Titanically lame!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-1267720668631501292014-01-31T02:26:04.186-05:002014-01-31T02:26:04.186-05:00OMB ( Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics)
Part 2
B...OMB ( Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics)<br /><br />Part 2<br /><br />Bob Somerby: We Learn a Great Many False Facts From Elites<br />1/30/14<br /><br /><strong>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.</strong><br /><br />Pile of Crap.<br /><br />Bob's combining into one introduction one of his true statements<br />(Obama didn't say it), with a misleading statement (he implied it)<br />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:<br /><br /><strong>Also, women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work! Obama said it.</strong><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><strong>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.”</strong><br /><br />Partly True Partly Whopper.<br /><br />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.<br />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.<br /><br /><strong>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.”</strong><br /><br />Well Salted Pile of Crap with a Tiny Turd of Truth<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Coming: Bogus Whores and Hoary Bores <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com