11 thoughts on “News/Politics 12-12-18

  1. Like Michelle’s link yesterday, the feminists will not like this new Harvard study one bit. 🙂

    The Gender Pay Gap is caused by differing priorities, not by sexism.


    “Harvard Study: Gender Wage Gap The Result Of Differing Choices Made By Men And Women”

    “The Daily Caller which published a story about this study Monday evening. A pair of researchers at Harvard, one of whom is listed as a Ph.D. candidate in the field of economics, has published a working paper which examines the gender wage gap. In order to determine why men seem to make more money than women at the same job, the authors looked at Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority data on bus and train operators doing the same jobs under the same union contract. What they found is that the wage gap that exists is the result of men being more likely to work overtime while women are more likely to prioritize time at home. From the study’s conclusion:

    We show that a gender earnings gap can exist even in a controlled environment where work tasks are similar, wages are identical, and tenure dictates promotions. The gap of $0.89 in our setting, which is 60% of the earnings gap across the United States, can be explained entirely by the fact that, while having the same choice sets in the workplace, women and men make different choices. Women use the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to take more unpaid time off than men and they work fewer overtime hours at 1.5 times the wage rate. At the root of these different choices is the fact that women value time and flexibility more than men. Men and women choose to work similar hours of overtime when it is scheduled a quarter in advance, but men work nearly twice as many overtime hours than women when they are scheduled the day before. Using W-4 filings to ascertain marital status and the presence of dependents, we show that women with dependents – especially single women – value time away from work more than men with dependents.

    You might be thinking that men are more likely to take overtime because they are less likely to have children at home to care for. However, the researchers were able to control for this as well, comparing single dads with single moms. The result? Single men with dependents were much more likely to accept overtime:

    Regardless of whether or not they have dependents, men are 4 to 6 percentage points more likely than women to accept an overtime opportunity. The difference in acceptance rates between men and women is higher, though, if the operators have dependents, especially so if the unscheduled overtime is offered on a weekend or on a day when the operators are already scheduled to work. The presence of dependents makes the overtime opportunity more valuable for men and time spent outside of work more valuable for women…

    Diving deeper still, Figure 9 reveals that the biggest gaps in acceptance rates (up to 8 percentage points) are between single women and single men with dependents. These results
    suggest that single men are able to take care of their dependents by working more overtime, possibly to pay for child support or to finance other forms of child care. Single women, on the other hand, appear to be making the decision to do the caretaking themselves rather than to caretake through additional earnings. It is, of course, possible that for women this situation is not as much a personal preference as it is a constraint. Thus, our results imply that differences in care-taking approaches and responsibilities appear to be a major reason why women work less overtime than men.”



    Liked by 2 people

  2. The stupid….. it hurts….. 🙄


    “Virginia School Board Fires Teacher For Not Using Transgender Pronouns

    Peter Vlaming lost his job because, although he agreed to use the transgender student’s opposite-sex name, he refused to use transgender pronouns.”

    “A school board fired a high school teacher in Virginia Thursday for refusing to refer to a female student by male pronouns, even though Peter Vlaming did agree to refer to the transgender student by her new male name.

    School administrators recommended to the West Point School Board that Vlaming be fired. They claimed he had violated the school’s nondiscrimination and harassment policies.

    Battles over bathrooms, locker rooms, sports teams, and other sex-specific spaces have been raging for some time in schools across the country, although so far it appears few teachers have been fired over it. This decision to sanction transgender groupthink at the cost of a teacher’s job shows just how far public schools have become willing to go to deny biological reality and enforce leftist propaganda.”


    VA. public schools are no place for children.


  3. A court win and some vindication for Project Veritas.


    “There’s some good news coming out of a court in Massachusetts and it deals with transparency by public officials when dealing with the public. The immediate benefactors of this particular case include James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas and some other folks who routinely tape police on the beat, but it should have implications for the public – and particularly journalists – around the country. The state has had a law on the books since the sixties which banned “taping wire and oral communications with the legislature,” but it had been applied to cover other public officials and even the police. Now some parts of the law appear to be heading for the scrap heap. (Washington Times)

    A federal judge ruled Monday that Americans have a right to secretly record their public officials, including police, when they are engaged in their government duties.

    U.S. District Chief Judge Patti B. Staris said a Massachusetts law banning secret recordings violates the First Amendment when it comes to government employees, rejecting the state’s claims that officials need some space to be able to operate without having to worry about being monitored.

    “This is not to say that police and government officials have no privacy interests,” she wrote. “However, the diminished privacy interests of government officials performing their duties in public must be balanced by the First Amendment interest in newsgathering and information-dissemination.”

    My initial reaction was to say that “secret recording” might be going a bit far on the transparency side, but on further reflection, I’ve come to conclude it was a rather silly idea. Perhaps more than most other citizens, public officials are the people who will reflexively act differently when they know a camera is on them. Sometimes surreptitious recording is probably the only way to catch them if they are misbehaving.”


  4. Comey and his merry band of leakers look to escape justice yet again. And they will, because the corrupt still control the DoJ, who will do nothing, as usual.


    “Comey Shrugs
    During his March 2017 testimony before the House Intelligence committee, Comey confirmed repeatedly under questioning that the disclosure of classified information to a reporter is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

    Citing the Washington Post articles, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) pushed Comey to admit there is no exception for former or current government officials; Gowdy asked how the FBI would investigate the felonious disclosures: “You would start by figuring out, who are the suspects? Who touched the information that you’ve concluded ended up unlawfully in the newspaper and start with that universe and then use investigative tools and techniques to see if you can eliminate people or include people.”

    Gowdy went through a list of top Obama officials who might have had access to the intercepted content of Flynn’s calls. A very uncomfortable-looking Comey confirmed that Clapper, Brennan, Yates, former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch would “in theory” have had access to the classified material. Comey also refused to tell Congress whether an investigation into the felonious leaks was underway.

    A month later, presumably emboldened by Comey’s tepid response to illegal leaks about classified information, Entous reported on the FISA warrant against Carter Page sourced by “officials [who] spoke about the court order on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss details of a counterintelligence probe.” Entous wrote that FISA warrants are “some of the most closely guarded secrets in the world.”

    To date, none of the law enforcement or intelligence officials who illegally leaked the information about Flynn has been identified or charged, let alone tried and convicted.

    Only one government official—James Wolfe, the security chief of the Senate Intelligence Committee—has been identified as disclosing top secret information to reporters, including his young journo girlfriend, about the Carter Page FISA order. Wolfe has pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI about his illegal disclosures.

    The Justice Department allegedly has been investigating since early 2017 more than two dozen illegal leaks. But while the wheels of justice move quickly for Trump associates such as Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Michael Cohen, there is no urgency in nabbing deep state criminals who actually threaten the rule of law and democratic norms. Despite their bluster about the danger that Trump poses to our institutions, it is they—not the president—who are destroying the integrity of those institutions without consequence.”


  5. Uninformed and idiotic.

    That about sums up the media.


    “Jim VandeHei of Axios claimed to sum up on Sunday “what we already now know” about Robert Mueller’s findings in the Russia probe. His next claim was even more robust. “What we already now know is highly damning and highly detailed.”

    If you want to — and I quote — “go deeper,” you can click a button that gives you “460 words” of how what we know is highly damning and highly detailed. It is, of course, not even close to either of those things. But it’s worth looking at to see how some D.C. figures are easily spun into thinking — or claiming to think — that things for which there is no evidence have “highly detailed” evidence.

    Here’s the first allegedly “highly detailed” and “highly damning” assertion from VandeHei: “We now know several Russian officials reached out to a half-dozen Republicans very close to Trump and his campaign, including his eldest son, his closest adviser, his lawyer and his campaign manager. We now know they took the meetings, often enthusiastically, during and after the campaign.”

    You will note the details aren’t robust enough for us to have a strong idea of what VandeHei is claiming, much less what in the world is damning about it. It’s almost comical. It is true that foreigners reach out to American campaigns, and that Russia is a foreign country. Presumably Mueller isn’t investigating whether Russia exists or has officials who reach out to campaigns, but rather whether there was any treasonous collusion to steal the 2016 election from its rightful owner Hillary Clinton. Perhaps this is a reference to a meeting with Russians that involved no collusion to steal an election, but an unsuccessful attempt to convince Trump affiliates to oppose Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia.

    If taking a meeting with foreign individuals is de facto proof of a crime, then how would these people characterize the hiring of a foreign spy to work with Russian officials to spread misinformation about an opposing campaign? After all, it was the Clinton campaign that funneled money to hire foreign ex-spy Christopher Steele, an unregistered foreign agent of the sanctioned, Kremlin-connected Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Steele invented a document sourced to Russian officials in and near the Kremlin with outlandish and discredited allegations that were fed to a compliant media and weaponized by U.S. government officials to spy on American citizens connected to Trump. Government officials illegally leaked false negative information about Trump-connected individuals to fuel the Clinton project.

    The next “highly detailed” and “highly damning” item from VandeHei: “We now know Russia offered in those chats campaign assistance — ‘synergy,’ they called it. We now know no one around Trump alerted the FBI of this effort to subvert our elections.”

    This dramatically overwritten item obscures the fact that the alleged “synergy” was offered by a Russian weightlifter, that the offer was not acted upon, and that the offer, even if it were from a someone higher up in Russian operations than the “weightlifter” portion, was in no way detailed enough to say it was an offer to “subvert our elections.”

    VandeHei then alleges, without evidence, that Trump “lied” about being a global businessman trying to develop property in Russia. It is unclear what he’s referencing, since Trump’s statements have accurately noted that no business deal with Russia has ever been reached, and he had spent years talking publicly about developing property in Russia and various other countries. The suggestion that the American public did not know Trump wanted to build Trump towers throughout the world is difficult to swallow.

    VandeHei then says, “We now know every arm of the U.S. intelligence community concluded Russia sought to systematically influence the election outcome.” In reality, only three intelligence agencies were party to the assessment, with the vast majority not spending time or resources looking into it, and it was a process that has received some criticism for the manner in which the assessment was made, and its lack of transparency. It is also not true, as VandeHei claims, that Trump rejects this assessment. He has repeatedly acknowledged Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections, part of a pattern of Russian interference going back decades. Trump has rejected the politicization of intelligence agencies, including their opposition to him, which he believes threatens national security.

    Another “highly detailed” and “highly damning” item in Vandehei’s listicle is that the incoming president and his staff communicated with world leaders in preparation for Trump taking office, a practice that all incoming administrations have done to ensure that the new administration is able to hit the ground running upon inauguration.”


  6. You would think that someone on a terrorist watch list would be, you know, watched……


    “A suspect on a terrorist watch list was being hunted Wednesday after three people were killed and more than a dozen others wounded in a shooting near a Christmas market in the French city of Strasbourg.

    Police had raided the suspect’s home hours before Tuesday’s attack as part of a burglary probe.

    Cultural sites and sports centers were closed on Wednesday as 350 police officers were deployed in the manhunt.

    The shooting took place shortly before 8 p.m. local time (2 p.m. ET) near a Christmas market that attracts millions of tourists every year. Strasbourg considers itself the “capital of Christmas.”

    The suspect fled the scene and exchanged shots with police between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. local time, according to Interior Minister Christophe Castaner. He said the suspect has a criminal record in France and Germany.

    A prosecutor had earlier said that officers were searching for the suspect in connection with alleged criminal association with a terrorist group and attempted assassination.”


  7. Poor Nate. Dragged again. 🙂





  8. Much ado about Cohen, but not much about Trump or Russia.

    But they’ll keep fishing. What’s $30 million wasted anyway, when taxpayers will replenish their coffers?


    “Robert Mueller’s case against Michael Cohen has very little to do with Trump or campaign finance violations”

    “President Trump and the 2016 campaign amount to a footnote in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s sentence filings on Michael Cohen, despite the news media’s heavily overstated narrative that the whole thing is about to blow the lid on a White House “felony.”

    The documents are almost exclusively an indictment of Cohen as a tax evader and serial liar. The link to Trump, or of any allegation of wrongdoing on his behalf, has nowhere near the clarity liberals want you to believe.

    One of Mueller’s filings demonstrates that Cohen repeatedly lied to Congress and to the Justice Department about the timeline of a business deal in Russia that he had pursued on behalf of the Trump Organization.

    The other document is much worse for Cohen in detailing his own conduct.

    “[T]he crimes committed by Cohen were more serious than his submission allows and were marked by a pattern of deception that permeated his professional life (and was evidently hidden from the friends and family members who wrote on his behalf),” the document reads at the start.

    It goes on to accuse Cohen of evading $1.4 million in federal taxes by way of a taxi medallion scheme and by neglecting to claim sources of revenue, such as $30,000 in profit “from the sale of a rare and highly valuable French handbag.”

    Just a reminder that I’m citing a court document on the crimes of Michael Cohen, former personal lawyer for Donald Trump, and not quoting the script of a movie starring Zsa Zsa Gabor.

    The Mueller document also lays bare Cohen’s defrauding of banks that loaned him money. He failed to disclose to them millions of dollars of his personal debt and expenses.

    Only after those astonishing revelations does the special counsel delve into the 2016 campaign and the payments to two porn actresses who allegedly had separate affairs with Trump. The document says that Cohen “admitted” that he “acted in coordination with and at the direction of [Trump]” and that Cohen “acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election.”

    Cohen, with the threat of harsh penalties related to tax evasion and lying to Congress, told prosecutors he committed the campaign finance violations.”


    Cohen has been composing lies, not testifying truths.


  9. Because we love taxes in California


    SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — The California Public Utilities Commission is set to vote next month on a proposal to tax text messages.

    State regulators say the money would be used to support programs that provide phone service to the poor.

    It’s unclear how much you’d have to pay per message.

    The wireless industry and business groups are fighting the plan.

    They say it could cost phone users an extra $44 million a year.

    They also say the proposal is unfair because services like Facebook’s Messenger and Apple’s iMessage wouldn’t be hit with the new fee. …



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.