I forgot about that comment of Alito's! See, this is how disingenuous the man is—he will say whatever works to accomplish his goals. I remember the precedence comment during his confirmation hearings. Then, of course the first thing he does is reverse precedent on two major issues.

Quite maddening.

The EEOC, which is supposed to enforce the relevant laws (see here: http://eeoc.gov/policy/laws.html), and which has considerable experience with them, thought it was abundantly clear that Goodyear's behavior was illegal and Ledbetter had been wronged.

The SC majority just reversed decades of precedent and accepted interpretations of the existing law. Alito's calling those those interpretations and decisions "policy" instead of precedence and differing interpretations is disingenuous. It's no different from the Bush administration dismissing questions about the legality of some of their behavior as "political."

By the way, the laws themselves are linked from that URL above, so you can read for yourself and see if they seem "ambiguous."

—and of course, is predominantly male.

The EEOC was on Ledbetter's side. But once things reached the Supreme Court, the Bush administration sent a brief arguing against the EEOC's position. From the NYT article:

As with an abortion ruling last month, this decision showed the impact of Justice Alito’s presence on the court. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, whom he succeeded, would almost certainly have voted the other way, bringing about the opposite result.

What the majority fail to appreciate is that in a large sense, pay discrimination is theft of opportunity as well as money. If they would only consider that the employer's profits over this theft increase over time, and that the party discriminated against has reduced options in the future because of discrimination. When an employer hires someone for less pay, whether she knows it at the time or not, her next job will probably be for lower pay as well. She will find it cumulatively harder and harder to obtain work at an appropriate rate of pay. It's harder to take time to look for a better job (she may have to work longer hours or two jobs, to meet her and any dependents' needs). Her ability to get more training and advance is hampered by a lack of funds, and her better-paid competitors have a definite edge. This happens not over months, but years. Mere accounting of paychecks doesn't begin to even the scales.

Perhaps our unequal representation in the highest levels of government is more of a problem than we like to admit.

But subtle? I think not.

I know a couple (online blogging friends) that just emigrated to Singapore for better health care. They were interviewed on NPR about it (http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_217_Answering_The_Call.mp3/view).

From the NPR site on the story:

My wife is from Singapore, and moved to North Carolina two and a half years ago so that we could start our lives as a married couple. Last year, she was diagnosed with endometriosis… after all of the bills were in, we paid somewhere around $5,000; we estimated that without insurance, it would have been over $16,000. About six weeks ago, we visited Singapore…my wife went to a gynecologist for a checkup, since it was far cheaper than an appointment in the US, and she found out that her cysts had come back. This time, we didn't have insurance; my wife was now freelancing, and I was working part-time at 2 separate jobs. At that point, we made the very difficult decision to move to Singapore.

The NPR URL above offers more links discussing this story.

Personally, if I had the money I would love to go to another country to get my dental work done, or the two essential surgeries I had in 2003 and 2004. Even with insurance, my husband and I are still recovering from the financial blow of meeting basic medical needs, which continue to drain us financially, emotionally, and physically. And of course, we pay for the insurance in full ourselves (as a contractor, I get no benefits from my staffing firm), and the insurance regularly rejects claims which are valid, making us call and mail them frequently just to get them to pay a pre-approved claim.

Think about it. We're a country founded by people who were either seeking economic reward from resources they could steal from indigenous peoples, or were seeking religious freedom because they were unable to play nicely with others. (I know there was religious persecution, but with the exception of the Cathars, I can think of no religion which did not survive its European persecutions, for the most part adapting and coexisting with other faiths.)

Our origins are people who needed elbow room because getting along with others was not an option. The founding fathers thought freedom of religious choice was good, but it was easy to think that when people simply isolated themselves or moved that didn't agree with their neighbors. Now we're filling up the corners and we're having trouble.

To expect a nation founded in parallel traditions of greed and self-righteousness to learn to share is asking a lot. To ask us to give up financial profit in favor of benefits for all, in a manner that doesn't suit the sense of entitlement we have, is asking a lot. I don't mean it's not possible, but the problems we have here are all a result of a deeply flawed world view.

This is not a troll, this is my considered opinion. I do think we're a good country, and we do many good things - but those are usually things that make us feel good about ourselves, or that turn a profit. And if everyone would just prove me wrong by establishing health care for everyone, even if we have to stand in line, I would be most appreciative. I haven't been able to afford what dentists tell me is "minimal" and "essential" dental care for over two decades now.