People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Who Is Obama?

I'm going to enjoy watching all those lefties who supported Barack Obama's candidacy in 2008 explain who the guy is today.  He - and they - were against Gitmo, before he was for it.  He - and they - favored higher taxes on the rich, before he opposed them.  He was big on raising the national debt, before he became a fiscal conservative.  He - and they - were anti-war, until he lit up the sky with missiles in lands hither and yon.  And now ...

... Barack Obama repudiates his own past.

That's right.  President Barack Obama denounces a vote that Senator Barack Obama cast in 2006.

Expect his supporters to find the incongruity of it all perfectly congruous.

They and he deserve each other.

Witticism of the Day

A blurb from Glenn Reynolds:

"BUT THE OTHER VIEWER SAYS HE’S PRETTY HAPPY WITH IT: Chris Matthews: Paul Ryan’s Medicare Plan Will ‘Kill Half the People Who Watch My Show’."

You may have to read it twice.


Ya Gotta Love Unions

Here's one for your amusement and/or outrage.  The California Federation of Teachers last month adopted a resolution condemning bullying.  And another supporting cold-blooded murder.


Are these people strange or what?
Teachers support cop-killer
By Caroline May, The Daily Caller

Between negotiating for more benefits and teaching their students, the California Federation of Teachers has adopted a resolution of support for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.

At the CFT’s 2011 Convention in late March, the delegates passed 30 resolutions, from solidifying support for anti-bullying legislation to supporting transitional kindergarten. Among the resolutions largely pertaining to education and collective bargaining rights was Resolution 19 – to “Reaffirm support for death row journalist.”

Mumia Abu-Jamal was a former member of the Black Panthers who was found guilty of murdering Philadelphia police officer Daniel J. Faulkner during a routine traffic stop in 1981. Abu-Jamal was subsequently sentenced to death.

His supporters, such as the California Federation of Teachers, argue that his trial was unfair and that he is a civil rights hero. [link]
His trial was unfair.  Because it allowed witnesses to testify that this asshole admitted - no, more than that, triumphed over the fact - that he had shot officer Faulkner and expressed his sincere hope that the policeman died.  Which he did.

California teachers are opposed to bullies. But they're perfectly okay with cop-killers.

For the love of God.

Nice Ploy, If You Can Get Away With It

I've always admired the ability of America's Democrats and their bosom buddies in the media to frame the political debate such that conservatives are in the wrong if they insist on pushing "social issues."  Social issues generally revolving around aborted fetuses and homosexuals.  Liberals in this country have rather successfully muted pro-life proponents and all who see gay marriage as an abomination by invoking the "social issues" mantra.  Such discussions in a public forum are just not had these days.

Unless you're a Democrat.

And you want to push your own social agenda.

Having to do with abortion and gay marriage.

Then discussion of "social issues" is acceptable, and even encouraged.


James Taranto lays out the remarkable rules of the game as they're played these days:
The Pro-Abortion Party
Best of the Web Today

A Bloomberg account has Obama telling Boehner during the same meeting: "Nope, zero. John, this is it." And that was it. The Republicans did well in the negotiation overall: "Boehner agreed to a package of $38.5 billion in cuts, a significant victory for a man who said his goal was to extract as much as possible from the federal budget," Bloomberg reports. But they yielded on the question of subsidizing Planned Parenthood, America's biggest abortion provider.

A news story in Saturday's New York Times begins by observing that "the emergence of abortion as the last and most contentious of the issues" in the budget dispute "highlighted the enduring influence of social conservatives within the Republican Party." It seems to us that this gets it backward.

The Times, of course, views "social conservatives" as deviants and their opponents as normal--note how they're seldom even termed "social liberals." But if you look at the question from a more neutral point of view, there's no escaping the conclusion that Democrats are more dogmatically pro-abortion than Republicans are antiabortion. It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who were willing to shut down the government over subsidies to Planned Parenthood.

[S]ingle-issue pro-abortion voters are still a crucial component of the Democratic electoral base. As National Journal reported last week, President Obama is "struggling with every other segment of the white electorate, including younger voters," with the exception of "well-educated white women."

His willingness to shut down the government rather than cut funding to Planned Parenthood is a strong show of support to this bloc of voters. How it will go over with the rest of the electorate is another question. [link]
The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate. Let me repeat that, so all those who want to stomp on women’s health and women’s rights can hear us loud and clear. The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate.”

I get really confused.  Who's pushing their unwavering social agenda here?

It's so wrong to fight over "social issues." Except when it's not.

Do Men Earn More Than Women?

"Since the Equal Pay Act was signed in 1963, the wage gap has been closing at a very slow rate. In 1963, women who worked full-time, year-round made 59 cents on average for every dollar earned by men. In 2009, women earned 77 cents to men's dollar. That means that the wage gap has narrowed by less than half a cent per year!"

Ah, the wage gap.  The yawning spread between what American women are paid compared to men.

Oh, the humanity.

As I've written on these pages before, bring forth the company (just one) that pays its female employees who have the same job title, the same length of uninterrupted service, and the same length of service in their current position who are paid less than their male counterparts and I'll help lock them up and throw away the key.

If pay inequity is a matter of discrimination, who's discriminating?  Exxon?  Wal-Mart?  General Motors?  General Electric?  Ford?  Hewlett Packard?  AT&T, Bank of America, Cargill?  Verizon?  Koch Industries, IBM?


With a "gap" like that it should be easy to ferret out the culprits and expose them to the world.

Who's doing the discriminating?

Unfortunately, we never get specifics like that.  We only see vague generalities.  Women are paid less than men.  America is bad.


So what do the empirical data actually reveal?
There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap
By Carrie Lukas, Wall Street Journal

Feminist hand-wringing about the wage gap relies on the assumption that the differences in average earnings stem from discrimination. Thus the mantra that women make only 77% of what men earn for equal work. But even a cursory review of the data proves this assumption false.

The Department of Labor's Time Use survey shows that full-time working women spend an average of 8.01 hours per day on the job, compared to 8.75 hours for full-time working men. One would expect that someone who works 9% more would also earn more. This one fact alone accounts for more than a third of the wage gap.

Choice of occupation also plays an important role in earnings. While feminists suggest that women are coerced into lower-paying job sectors, most women know that something else is often at work. Women gravitate toward jobs with fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. Simply put, many women—not all, but enough to have a big impact on the statistics—are willing to trade higher pay for other desirable job characteristics.

Men, by contrast, often take on jobs that involve physical labor, outdoor work, overnight shifts and dangerous conditions (which is also why men suffer the overwhelming majority of injuries and deaths at the workplace). They put up with these unpleasant factors so that they can earn more.

Recent studies have shown that the wage gap shrinks—or even reverses—when relevant factors are taken into account and comparisons are made between men and women in similar circumstances. In a 2010 study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, the research firm Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts. Given that women are outpacing men in educational attainment, and that our economy is increasingly geared toward knowledge-based jobs, it makes sense that women's earnings are going up compared to men's. [link] [emphasis mine]
That's the point I've been making for years.  When comparing apples to apples, there is no wage gap here in this country.  (In fact any business manager who intentionally or inadvertently pays his or her female employees less than their male coworkers has a death wish.)

Repeat: There is no wage gap in the USA in the year of our Lord 2011.

So let that silly myth die.  Finally.

And let's all get back to work.