tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post5249411658109441230..comments2024-03-29T10:45:09.432-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Do you believe what Maddow said?<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-22295532501484339022015-10-18T06:39:52.510-04:002015-10-18T06:39:52.510-04:00oakley standard issue cheap oakley sunglasses oakl...<a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="oakley standard issue" rel="nofollow"><strong>oakley standard issue</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="cheap oakley sunglasses" rel="nofollow"><strong>cheap oakley sunglasses</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="oakley si" rel="nofollow"><strong>oakley si</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="oakley frogskins" rel="nofollow"><strong>oakley frogskins</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="oakley store" rel="nofollow"><strong>oakley store</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="oakley radar" rel="nofollow"><strong>oakley radar</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="oakley outlet" rel="nofollow"><strong>oakley outlet</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="cheap oakley sunglasses" rel="nofollow"><strong>cheap oakley sunglasses</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="cheap oakleys" rel="nofollow"><strong>cheap oakleys</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="oakley sunglasses outlet" rel="nofollow"><strong>oakley sunglasses outlet</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="discount oakley sunglasses" rel="nofollow"><strong>discount oakley sunglasses</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="holbrook oakley" rel="nofollow"><strong>holbrook oakley</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="oakley sunglasses sale" rel="nofollow"><strong>oakley sunglasses sale</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="oakley sale" rel="nofollow"><strong>oakley sale</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="oakleys cheap" rel="nofollow"><strong>oakleys cheap</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="cheap oakleys sunglasses" rel="nofollow"><strong>cheap oakleys sunglasses</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="fake oakleys" rel="nofollow"><strong>fake oakleys</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="buy cheap oakleys" rel="nofollow"><strong>buy cheap oakleys</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="cheap oakleys glasses" rel="nofollow"><strong>cheap oakleys glasses</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="fake oakley sunglasses" rel="nofollow"><strong>fake oakley sunglasses</strong></a> <a href="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com/" title="http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com</strong></a> <a href="http://www.cheapoakleyssunglassesoutletstore.com/" title="discount oakley sunglasses" rel="nofollow"><strong>discount oakley sunglasses</strong></a> <a href="http://www.cheapoakleyssunglassesoutletstore.com/" title="cheap oakley sunglasses" rel="nofollow"><strong>cheap oakley sunglasses</strong></a> <a href="http://www.cheapoakleyssunglassesoutletstore.com/" title="cheap oakleys" rel="nofollow"><strong>cheap oakleys</strong></a> <a href="http://www.cheapoakleyssunglassesoutletstore.com/" title="oakleys cheap" rel="nofollow"><strong>oakleys cheap</strong></a> <a href="http://www.cheapoakleyssunglassesoutletstore.com/" title="buy cheap oakleys" rel="nofollow"><strong>buy cheap oakleys</strong></a> <a href="http://www.cheapoakleyssunglassesoutletstore.com/" title="cheap oakleys glasses" rel="nofollow"><strong>cheap oakleys glasses</strong></a> <a href="http://www.cheapoakleyssunglassesoutletstore.com/" title="fake oakley sunglasses" rel="nofollow"><strong>fake oakley sunglasses</strong></a> <a href="http://www.cheapoakleyssunglassesoutletstore.com/" title="cheap oakleys sunglasses" rel="nofollow"><strong>cheap oakleys sunglasses</strong></a> <a href="http://www.cheapoakleyssunglassesoutletstore.com/" title="oakley outlet" rel="nofollow"><strong>oakley outlet</strong></a> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00440261967887444918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-74915797412860554992013-01-30T08:31:12.862-05:002013-01-30T08:31:12.862-05:00thanks to you for writing in such simple words. Bi...thanks to you for writing in such simple words. Big thumb up for this blog post!<a href="http://www.hillslittlelearners.com.au/" rel="nofollow">childcare hills area</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04498555229089102933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-81086909902093166612012-05-07T16:20:20.999-04:002012-05-07T16:20:20.999-04:00I believe the correct term is "TL;DR" (t...I believe the correct term is "TL;DR" (too long, didn't read).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-58015125351761653522012-05-07T08:36:21.616-04:002012-05-07T08:36:21.616-04:00"You'll never find out here, because the ..."You'll never find out here, because the far-left position, in Bob's model is Rachel Maddow's"<br /><br />Your straw-man. <br /><br />Bob doesn't say (or even imply unless you are severely comprehension-challenged) that Maddow represents the "far left."<br /><br />So if you don't like the question "Is Maddow a clown" you just change it to "Is there a more-left position one can take?" <br /><br />Good plan. <br /><br />But Maddow's fail remains writ large.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-85360970087200937932012-05-06T23:41:39.900-04:002012-05-06T23:41:39.900-04:00Even as I have (rightfully) disparaged The Daily H...Even as I have (rightfully) disparaged The Daily Howler for ignoring Rachel Maddow's worthwhile and possibly important new book, I think he is right on here. And it goes to heart of why people hate politics and bull and the bull slinging entertainers like Maddow. <br /><br /> Thing is, anyone possessing a rudimentary sense of "how to lie with statistics" <br />would smell her claim's dubious suggestions a mile away. And if you're a male trying to survive in the current job market you might well be offended and quite possibly with good reason. But Maddow is selling identity politics, and it's help make her a millionaire. <br /> <br /> A poster on the last link claimed that his wife was receiving downgraded pay based on her sex. The reasons sounded a little too off the shelf purpose, but I'm certainly willing to entertain the idea that these things occur. Maybe often. I am also open to the concept that The Courts have made it too difficult for women to seek redress in such instances. <br /><br /> But the average bottom level worker in the U.S. makes the same lousy wage in <br /> this Country no matter what sex they are. When you go, say, to Barnes and Noble, one of the big companies which has JUST cancelled benefits for it's part time workers, tut your book back on the shelf. That nice looking middle aged man makes about 9.00 bucks an hour. <br /> Does Maddows fanciful stats put a wedge between the sex of workers at such a pay scale? She couldn't care less. Redress of real economic inequality is hardly her concern.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288008924419574934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-23225153940715123532012-05-06T22:51:32.477-04:002012-05-06T22:51:32.477-04:00Actually, you are both wrong. The GAO finds that i...Actually, you are both wrong. The GAO finds that in its multi-year sample, women made 44% of what men made in terms of the raw data - a 56% gap. (Remember their sample runs back into the early 80's.) So the drop was from 56% to 21% after they did their anaysis, or about a 63% drop. But again, this is measured over a very long period of time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-15680136945260706382012-05-06T21:25:53.505-04:002012-05-06T21:25:53.505-04:00You only read half the post before writing an equa...You only read half the post before writing an equally long, tedious-looking comment. (I only read the first few sentences of your manifesto.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-48009511525279968212012-05-06T18:31:33.244-04:002012-05-06T18:31:33.244-04:00What is really interesting is how Bob reseached hi...What is really interesting is how Bob reseached his big find that pay differences aren't mostly due to discrimination: he watched some TV and (it looks like maybe) something on youtube. This may be ok for a media critic - although still a bit lazy - but it's very bad policy analysis. Usually Bob knows his limitations and stays away from all the substantive stuff - except on education where he does know something. This time he didn't stay away and he made a mess. I hope he has the integrity to clean it up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-34819739314204921632012-05-06T17:12:02.398-04:002012-05-06T17:12:02.398-04:00Bob's evidence for they 'mostly aren't...Bob's evidence for they 'mostly aren't': a misrepresentation of a GAO report's findings, the findings of another GAO report on the federal workforce - a workforce that is very different from the populatio at large and the opinion of some unqualified person that he decides to call an expert. All he's got left is a CNN fact checker. Let's see how that works out for him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-89456713488944505142012-05-06T15:38:45.195-04:002012-05-06T15:38:45.195-04:00"Better informed and reputable sources who ac..."Better informed and reputable sources who actually study the matter and take the conventional lefty view (wage discrimination is present and significant) simply won't be heard from here, "<br /><br />What would be the best examples of these sources? Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-65403544204634750822012-05-06T14:14:31.531-04:002012-05-06T14:14:31.531-04:00This site has become a fascinating, if dispiriting...This site has become a fascinating, if dispiriting, illustration of what happens when "liberalism" is a strictly attitudinal conceit, based in neither knowledge nor analysis, but primitive allegiances (Clinton/Gore Good!; MSNBC bad!). Bob says he's a liberal, so he must be one, but his approach is nonetheless strange. There are, for example, an endless number of ways MSNBC programming could be attacked from the left. But Bob never takes those routes, evidently because he's not informed of them; it's so much easier to simply repeat the arguments heard on the right.<br /><br />*Are* women discriminated against in the workplace, in indefensible ways and if so, to what extent? You'll never find out here, because the far-left position, in Bob's model, is Rachel Maddow's. Better informed and reputable sources who actually study the matter and take the conventional lefty view (wage discrimination is present and significant) simply won't be heard from here, because Bob doesn't know of them and has no interest in establishing that (for example) Maddow is right, however defective her arguments.<br /><br />No, Bob demands that because Maddow's methods are sloppy, and because she tells stupid jokes, she must be wrong and a terrible person, to boot! Sort of the definition of ad hominen, no?<br /><br />And is "tribalism", if not indifference to the actual facts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-20354890515508146042012-05-06T13:44:18.382-04:002012-05-06T13:44:18.382-04:00Allow me to clarify my remarks, Anonymous. It'...Allow me to clarify my remarks, Anonymous. It's your job to substantiate your own argument, not mine. Apparently you think that I'm supposed to do all the work to prove how wrong I supposedly am while you piously sit around with your thumb in an undisclosed location. That is 1)not how it works and 2) was the reason I originally called you an imbecile; something that should have been obvious to anyone with half-decent reading comprehension.Hieronymus Braintreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05303938809800287873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-81373978329685985712012-05-06T12:22:18.460-04:002012-05-06T12:22:18.460-04:00In short:
Maddow tries hard to pretend gross ave...In short: <br /><br />Maddow tries hard to pretend gross average pay differences are due to discrimination, "doesn't want to hear" why they mostly aren't, and then deep-sixes the part of her own expert's analysis that shows that.<br /><br />Somerby points this out.<br /><br />Therefore Somerby is a time-waster, probably a sexist, and almost surely a right-winger in disguise.<br /><br />QED<br /><br />[/idiocy]Swannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-46051054008603042712012-05-06T11:32:58.016-04:002012-05-06T11:32:58.016-04:00Go to google (or any search engine) and type in th...Go to google (or any search engine) and type in the terms: marriage benefits men women. See what you get. Then call me an imbecile again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-80801732689496116132012-05-06T07:21:50.616-04:002012-05-06T07:21:50.616-04:00Sommerby has his own expert problem in this post. ...Sommerby has his own expert problem in this post. He uses Kay Hymowitz to support his low balling of the wage gap. Turns out she has no background in economics or statistics but she is the Manhattan Institute's expert on culture wars.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-90378365193143426152012-05-06T06:23:20.002-04:002012-05-06T06:23:20.002-04:00Bob,
Bob, you say that Kay Hymowitz as 'a lea...Bob,<br /><br />Bob, you say that Kay Hymowitz as 'a leading conservative expert on these topics.' Did you do any checking before you made this claim? Hymowitz herself claims expertise in education policy, childhood developent and and culture wars(!)on the Manhattan Institite webpage. Nothing about wages,employment or discrimination. On her own webpage, she lists two publications on the wage gap: an oped in the Wall Street Journal and a somewhat longer article in the City Journal. That's it! She's done nothing else even remotely related to this topic. Worse still - There is nothing in her educational background(an English MA)or her writings to suggest that she knows enough (or any)stats and economic to begin to understand the studies that you claim she's an expert on. <br /><br /><br />Why did you do that? You can't say it's the consrvatives that say she's an expert; you were writing in your own voice. I know she supports your claim the the wage gap is rather small but that should not be, in my view, a valid reason by itself to include her in your post, much less call her an expert.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-27874938977262914502012-05-06T04:00:29.729-04:002012-05-06T04:00:29.729-04:00It doesn't mattter who is at fault, the misinf...It doesn't mattter who is at fault, the misinformation about GAO's estimate is stitting on Bob's webpage. He has a resonsibilty to post a correction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-26740679359632031262012-05-05T20:13:53.923-04:002012-05-05T20:13:53.923-04:00Marriage benefits men more than women on a variety...Marriage benefits men more than women on a variety of measures. Who are men who never marry and why might they do more poorly at work than men who marry? This is not a valid comparison.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-27425967144656351512012-05-05T18:39:31.148-04:002012-05-05T18:39:31.148-04:00Uh, no, it wasn't Somerby who said only 20% of...Uh, no, it wasn't Somerby who said only 20% of the gap remained - it was Hartmann. Somerby is only guilty in this case of trusting Hartmann, the person Rachel had on as an expert. She said "you can’t explain at least 20 percent of it"<br /><br />"IT" being the gap, which was, according to Hartmann, 80% explainable.<br /><br />BTW, the "gap" in that GAO study, was 44 cents, not 23 cents. So 47.7% of it was explained. <br /><br />There seem to be far fewer believing in the infallibility of Somerby, than there are fawning over Rachel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-40654377155504053502012-05-05T18:27:53.654-04:002012-05-05T18:27:53.654-04:00actually, no, according to the GAO report, the &qu...actually, no, according to the GAO report, the "drop" was from 44% to 21%. Which is a drop of over 50%. Other studies have perhaps produced other gaps/drops. <br /><br />Stiil, I would claim that simply comparing one median to another, which is where the 23% and many other stories of the gap get their measure of said gap, is likely to be comparing apples to potatoes. It includes a lot of unknown factors and just assumes that medians will wash all those out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-81678050050702705242012-05-05T15:50:58.388-04:002012-05-05T15:50:58.388-04:00Of course, we can't listen to Sandberg. She...Of course, we can't listen to Sandberg. She's a successful COO. To find out what really flies in the business world you have to ask a women's studies professor.Hieronymus Braintreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05303938809800287873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-69415629627548323022012-05-05T15:49:53.676-04:002012-05-05T15:49:53.676-04:00Innumeracy at play. But then, true believers have ...Innumeracy at play. But then, true believers have always had problems with math.sherrlockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08689553678430736101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-23750277830354934762012-05-05T15:46:51.594-04:002012-05-05T15:46:51.594-04:00http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_ha...http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders.html#.TzcwGYgEeVB.facebookHieronymus Braintreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05303938809800287873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-77198628634859587252012-05-05T14:00:10.467-04:002012-05-05T14:00:10.467-04:00Comparing men and women doing "the same job&q...Comparing men and women doing "the same job" or even the same work does not necessarily isolate discrimination. If essentially all CEO's are men and women are only allowed to be secretaries there can be enormous discrimination, but the pay for doing the same job (if they can find any female CEO's or male secretaries) may be nearly the same. Note also that a job title does not necessarily accurately describe the work; subordinates often do the real work of powerful people.<br /><br />The overall 23% number may be more representative of actual functional discrimination than "same job" numbers.skeptonomistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-43398381259083525392012-05-05T11:33:26.248-04:002012-05-05T11:33:26.248-04:00This is the part of Castellanos's piece that r...This is the part of Castellanos's piece that really caught my eye:<br /><br />"'So who is right? It shouldn’t be hard to tell if there is a broad pattern of wage discrimination against women in the workplace: All we have to do is compare the earnings of never-married women to those of never-married men. If there is discrimination based on gender, single women should make less. What are the numbers when we take marriage out of the equation?<br /><br />● 'Today, among men and women living alone from the age of 21-35, there is no wage gap.'<br /><br />● 'Among college-educated men and women between 40 and 64 who have never married, men made an average of $40,000 a year and women made an average of $47,000!'”<br /><br />Wow. If that's really true and not right-wing BS, it completely blows any pretense of pay-gap gender discrimination victimization totally out of the water. <br /><br />Amazing how this claim appears not to have been mentioned by Maddow despite all her self-proclaimed efforts to understand where the so-called pay gap's critics are coming from. Gee, you'd figure Castellanos would be the first person she'd go to. <br /><br />I've been watching these righteous b-people for years and have come to the conclusion that it is virtually impossible to conceive a claim of female victimization absurd enough to be disbelieved. There was the claim that domestic violence against women spiked 40% on Super Bowl Sunday because us guys were so into the game that we just couldn't contain our natural impulses to brutalize women. That turned out to be a bunch of Shinola. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2546/does-violence-against-women-rise-40-during-the-super-bowl<br /><br />Then there was the conviction that porn leads to not just rape but the literal murder of women for entertainment when feminists embraced the snuff film hysteria. <br /><br />http://www.csicop.org/si/show/snuff_film_the_making_of_an_urban_legend/<br /><br />And, of course, feminists back in the late 80s and early 90s fomented a literally, no-effing-foolling witch hunt: <br /><br />http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n2_v53/ai_13566129/<br /><br />You know why feminists are considered to be strident, man-hating, eternally-victimized hysterics? It's because they're victims of a patriarchal smear campaign!Hieronymus Braintreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05303938809800287873noreply@blogger.com