Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
mizbinkley
Published Letters: 870 Editor's Choice: 116
I understand what you're saying. I just think you're ascribing to all hirers the same logic you have when you write: "In the end economics dictate that a corporation will hire the most efficient acquisition, meaning the most and best work at the lowest cost."
What many of us have witnessed is bosses behaving in irrational ways:
1.Being offended by a woman asking for a raise in a way they are not when a man asks for one.
2. Meeting the man's offer but not meeting the woman's offer.
3. Hiring so as to pay the cheapest salary now without doing the cost benefit analysis of paying more for greater experience.
Companies aren't automatons. They are only as logical as the people running them.
Many [conscious and sub-conscious] factors can go into what an employer is willing to pay. This is just to say that gender can be one of them.
Oh, RichEmery and a high-falutin' lawyer, you beat me to both definitions of treason. The Merriam-Webster definition is clearly ludicrous as applied to Reid and Pelosi. The “Constitutional” definition takes broad latitude with the words “giving aid and comfort.”
Someone more Constitutionally savvy than me makes some nice and brief points here:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/2196/Treason-Application-law-in-United-States.html
and writes, in part “established doctrine forbids Congress to enlarge beyond the constitutional definition the kinds of conduct that may be punished as treason” and “the limits set by the constitutional definition have curbed resort to treason prosecutions to suppress or harass peaceful, legitimate political competition”
Also, if Reid and Pelosi are getting “very, very close to treason,” does that mean that anyone who voted for them--or voted Democratic at all in the mid-term elections—is also semi-treasonous? The mid-term elections were widely viewed as a referendum on the Iraq War with the Democratic Congress tasked to do the will of people and end this war as quickly and as safely as possible.
With Bush's approval ratings hovering around 30%, does that mean that 70% of the country is treasonous, too?
From KidSource:
Obesity presents numerous problems for the child. In addition to increasing the risk of obesity in adulthood, childhood obesity is the leading cause of pediatric hypertension, is associated with Type II diabetes mellitus, increases the risk of coronary heart disease, increases stress on the weight-bearing joints, lowers self-esteem, and affects relationships with peers.
http://www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content2/obesity.html
There are serious consequences to obesity. A child with two obese parents has five times the risk of being obese himself. In households with one obese parent, one in eight children is dangerously overweight. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5282446.stm
Whether it’s nature or nurture, these children did not choose to be born into obese households. We owe them every opportunity to grow up healthy, everything from mandatory vaccinations to free and reduced school lunches for poor families.
Every child born to obese parents should be sent home with free samples of this special formula. Parents should receive vouchers if they are not able to afford the formula otherwise. Further testing will need to be done on the safety of this formula first, of course. But if the results are good, this could save both dollars and lives.
What an awesome goal!
According to the website, “The Partnership for Gender-Specific Medicine at Columbia is dedicated to learning more about the differences in women's and men's normal physical function and the unique ways in which each sex experiences disease.”
There’s also a neat little quiz on how diseases/issues can manifest differently in men and women. http://partnership.hs.columbia.edu/quiz.html
Women’s health matters (or it should) to men. Men’s health matters (or it should) to women. It’s not a competition issue. It’s about recognizing that diseases can manifest themselves differently in men and women, that medications can function differently, and that some health problems affect one sex more so than the other. Unless you’re a sadist, women don’t win when men’s health suffers and men don’t win when women’s health suffers.
So, women, encourage your men to go in for a check-up (actually, doctors sometimes try to reach men via the women in their lives) and recognize that men often show depression differently than women. And men, help your lady do her monthly breast exam; learn that women experience different symptoms from men when they have a heart attack.
Also, Let’s not distort the Wall Street Journal article. Although the WSJ article does say, “some experts question whether the intense focus on women has had the unintended result of allowing men's health issues to slide,” that’s only one tiny bit of the article. I really hate the use of the term “some experts,” but the rest of the article is pretty fair and informative.
“I was at the Council on Environmental Quality during this episode,” says Perino. Translation: “Don’t blame me. I wasn’t working here then.”
May 2003 "Mission Accomplished" was such a simpler time:
-Back when we’d begun the “search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already [knew] of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.”
-Back when there was a “coalition” that would “stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.”
-Back when Iraq was “an ally of al Qaeda” and “a source of terrorist funding.”
Ah, yes, such simpler times.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
