by singingsophist, Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:41:47 PM EDT
Okay, this article probably caught the eye of every New York Times reader on Friday. It's about how in New York, Dallas and several other major cities, women in their 20s now earn higher salaries than their male counterparts. It then goes on to hypothesize about the reasons for the change:
"'Previously, female migration patterns were determined primarily by their husband's educational levels or employment needs, even if both were college-educated,' she said. 'Today, highly qualified women are moving for their own professional opportunities and personal interests. It's no longer an era of power couple migration to, but one of power couple formation in places like New York.'"
"It is not clear whether this is the front edge of a trend in which women will gradually move ahead of men in all age groups. Typically, women have fallen further behind men in earnings as they get older. That is because some women stop working altogether, work only part time or encounter a glass ceiling in promotions and raises. But as women enrolled in college and graduate school continue to outnumber men, gender wage gaps among older workers may narrow, too, experts said. Even among New Yorkers in their 30s, women now make as much as men."
"And women in their 20s now make more than men in a wide variety of other jobs: as doctors, personnel managers, architects, economists, lawyers, stock clerks, customer service representatives, editors and reporters."
"Melissa J. Manfro, a 24-year-old lawyer who was raised in upstate New York, offered her own theory on why younger female lawyers are outearning their male peers: a desire to begin their careers earlier to prepare for starting families."
"Several experts also said that rising income for women might affect marriage rates if women expect their mates to have at least equivalent salaries and education."
Wait a second. Okay. There was something else you said, earlier in the article:
"Economists consider it striking because the wage gap between men and women nationally has narrowed more slowly and has even widened in recent years among one part of that group: college-educated women in their 20s."
So things are going poorly on the national level? Okay, that deserves a second's pause. It's not completely in line with the photo caption: "Melissa J. Manfro, center, theorizes that young female lawyers outearn male peers because they begin earlier, to prepare for starting families."
by BobbyNYC, Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 11:33:50 AM EDT
A right wing writer based in Virginia filed this story for the Politico today: "Left could push pro-Israel voters to GOP." The story is not labeled as an editorial. Although it's also posted in the IDEAS section of the website which includes other editorials and pieces of analysis, this article is posted on the front page and the byline merely reads "by Jennifer Rubin."
The point is that Rubin's story is being presented as an objective news story, filed at 6:23 AM by one of the Politico's staff writers. It's clearly not and includes a number of inflammatory and frankly ridiculous assertions regarding where the mainstream of the Democratic Party stands on Israel.
Some of the highlights:
-- A small but significant group of overwhelmingly Democratic members of Congress have consistently voted against efforts to support Israel in its continual struggle against terrorists and now an Islamist Hamas government in Gaza. These votes demonstrate that anti-Israel views are a minority in Congress -- but a minority composed primarily of the most left-leaning members of the Democratic Caucus.
-- In 2003, presidential candidate and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean declared in a speech that "it's not our place to take sides" between Israel and the Palestinians, an apparent repudiation of our decades-long special relationship and security obligations with Israel. Dean, now chairman of the Democratic National Committee, was widely criticized for these comments and subsequently argued he did not intend to alter the U.S.-Israel relationship.
-- Meanwhile, the Republican Party has never been more pro-Israel, in part because of the influence of Christian evangelicals who are devoted to Israel and support its battle against terrorists
Here's the BEST part... give me a break...
-- Dan Gerstein, a Democratic consultant and Politico columnist, candidly acknowledged that religious faith, generally higher on the right, accounts for the growing support within the Republican Party, while the "faith vacuum" on the left leaves some on the other side of the aisle less enamored of Israel.
First off, if the Politico wants to be taken seriously as a publication that presents fair and mainstream political views... then they really shouldn't be running this nonsense at all. If they feel like this is a legitimate perspective then at least clearly identify the piece as an editorial.
Here's the article in it's entirety. Enjoy and be outraged.
by pservelle, Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:45:56 PM EDT
A prediction: although contributions to presidential candidates will set an obscene record in 2008, contributions will simultaneously reach a turning point and will increasingly becomes less important in determining the outcome.
The first sign of this surprising turn-about will be visible folllowing the release of the March 31 reporting numbers. Although the Clinton money machine will produce a staggering amount of cash, it will fail to produce the desired result. Namely, it will not have driven out the competition. Obama and Edwards will take the news of her haul in stride.
Waving a huge wad of cash in the face of your opponent will no longer guarantee victory. In this election and here-after, to win, it might become necessary to rely on things you cannot buy: character; integrity and vision.
Sorry, but Mother's Milk Ain't What it used to be.
by czrpb, Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 12:30:53 PM EST
There was a piece in the Oregonian awhile back that I want to comment on by Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler in the Sunday August 20th Opinion section. In the Oregonian this piece was titled "Television's victim-dominated war coverage skews the picture" (it was also titled " Zooming in on victims" in the International Herald Tribune.
I am unable to find it on the web now and probably without it my commentary will not make as much sense but ....