Ten oz

President shined a spot light on the gender pay gap today so I figured I would check the temperature of the site. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-announce-new-rules-closing-gender-pay-gap-n506941 The main argument I have heard justifying the gender pay gap is that women lose time from their careers having babies. Per the Family Medical Leave Act of 93' women get up to 12 unpaid weeks of maternity leave. Of course these 12 weeks can't possibly explain the gender gap. So I assume those who deny a pay gap are calculating for multiple children and time off from work (at least committed time) to be into a few years? In the United States the average number of children per women in less than two. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html I had trouble finding consistent stats on the number of years the average American works. For arguement sake lets say 40yrs, 25-65yrs old. How much time do pay gap deniers assume women are missing do to maternity? Seperately what are the other arguments against actions and what are the ideas for change either way?

That all starts with the Courts. It is court rulings that said money is speech and cooperations are people. Can't limit the power of lobbyists and superpacs until who is a person is redefined. Law should be settled on its own merrits and not decades in advance by political groups who use the Courts tool to help them meet agendas they can't via the popular electorate. The Federalist Society have a list of goals, laws they either want amended or outright done away with. The focus of a judge should be to uphold law and change it. Judges also should not be politically partisan. You say "if I were a federal" but that in itself speak to how partisan they are. They are a political collective and not individual judges with free will seeking to accurately interpret the Constitution. They get into positions based on their allegiances. That in itself is a major conflict of interest. There is no liberal version of the federal society. There is not a liberal group at law schools around the country recruiting liberals to inact liberal policies through the courts. No quid pro qou for liberals to get positions on benches.

Money is speech and corperations are people; you call that having out country? Gerrymandered districts where candidates could lose if they got caught murdering babies on video; you call that having our country? Not me. One person one vote rather than a million dollars a million votes!!!! Hillary would put federalists on the bench. That alone would make her far better than any of the Republcans running.

As mentioned in post 563 I think the key is getting our courts back. Step one in electing Presidents who do not favor Federalist Judges. Once we get our courts functioning again we will get campiagn finance form, throttle back gerrymandering, and people rather than corperations will be able to start influencing our political system again. Once the federalist society loses control of our court system I believe the rest will fall like dominos.

No revolution is needed in my opinion. The conservatives have done a great job packing courts with the federalist society members. No wild conspiracy theory here. The Federalist Society is a well known organization supported by Republicans and it's members include supreme court justices. Provided Democrats keep winning the White House the federalist societies hold over the court system will dwindle. As that happens corperations won't be people anymore, Gerrymandering can be scaled back, and we can slowly begin regulated our financial institutions again. I believe we are slowly headed in the right direction. Hillary will be far from perfect but she will at least appoint real judges to our federal benches and not agenda driven political shills. Once we get our courts back we can get campaign finance and gerrymandering under control and get our house and senate back. Then we can get our country back.

There are certian political realities to winning elections. One of the issues Republicans are running on right now is how weak America has become under Obama. Now imagine if Obama had no support within the military industrial complex and stood down drones? The pendulum started at a point and is slowly moving back the other way. On any issue a President can only get so much of what they want. Clinton went with Don't Ask Don't Tell and people look back on that as flawed but at the time the majority of the country simple was ready for more. Today marijuana is still federally illegal. Obama isn't changing that but his DOJ isn't going after states that are allowing for use. That is a step forward. Pragmatic politics is often settling for the best between evils. There is a reason why truly left progressives never win office. Better to have a centrist in office than to lose the office to a right wing conservative.

TAR, in 1968 George Wallace ran a the most successful third party campaign since Teddy Roosevelt. Some argue it was Ross Perot but Perot didn't actually win electoral votes. He didn't outright win states. Wallace won the whole South. Wallace won 45 electoral votes and 15% of the national vote running on one issue " segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever". Wallace and his supporters were racist. No question. Which party did those Wallace voters support after 68'? Which party today wins those Wallace states? In New York when Trump announce his bid for President he had to pay people to fill the room. In Alabama Trump filled a stadium no problem. You can not deny to obvious and strong racist support within the Republican party. You can argue that every republican to a person is not a racist but you are wrong to claim the party as a whole doesn't placate and rub shoulders with racists.

In my opinion it is despicable the way conservative groups bully their way to the drivers seat and then pretend everyone in the car has equal responsibility for the destination. Like Bush's use of force authorization vote back in 2003. The Bush administration lied to the people about Iraq's nuclear program, chemical weapons program, link to Al Quada, and it's overall role in supporting terrorism broadly. When senators and congressmen challanged asking for information they were scolded (publically) that the information was beyond top secret and had there patriotism challenged. Bush knew, the military knew, the CIA knew, but the details couldn't be shared because it threatened security. With us or against us. Under that environment Bush demanded a vote. Out of free of appearing weak, losing office, or Bush possibly be right many democrats buckled. Voicing there concerns and fustrations but ultimately voting yes solely based on the notion that the conditions were urgent as the presidents and his admin claimed. Now here we are all these years later, we know Bush lied, we know it was always his goal to invade Iraq and terrorism was just a ruse, we know the vote was based on intimidation and fraud, and yet conservative still try to spread the blame around. It isn't their fault alone. Some Democrats voted for the authorization too so clearly both parties share blame. It is pathetic. When Obama took over the drivers seat of this country we were careening towards an erupting volcano! Yet conservatives argue that since we aren't on a newly paved road heading toward disneyland via fields of flowers today that somehow Obama shares responsibility for Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syrian, and etc. Yet they claim to be the party of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. They can't even take responsible for things for their own policies.

Personal responsibility - I think we all agree Strong military : what steps have Democrats taken to weaken the Military? There is a difference between strength and use. Christian values : is that would religious freedom means to you? Smaller Government : which Republican President shrunk the size of governement ?????? Private insurance : Eisenhower and Nixon both pushed for Government provided healthcare. When did opposing it become a Republican value? Less government interference in private business : which republican administration did this across the board without picking and choosing favorites? Free market operation : you mean like no bid contracts? The right to bear arms : has either party sent agents out to collect guns? Fight against Global terrorism : only Republcans do that? Private property and protection of personal wealth. Medicare, Medicaid, Soc Sec, employment, food stamps, military tricare, public education, the highway system, and etc weren't around during slavery. We have become stronger and have more safety nets than we did when we were less diverse and more segregated.

And yet here the USA stand as both the most powerful and most diverse. If what you say we're true wouldn't we be weak? Moreover explain to me how it is that within the United States the most diverse State are also the leading producers of everything. California, Texas, New York, and etc lead to way. They produce the overwhelming majority of our food, technology, media, and etc. The more "homogeneous" states like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and so on aren't the ones carrying this country. How could that be if diversity was sometype of blurrier?

Go back far enough and fruits and vegetables use to be seasonal perks humans only got to eat specific times of the years when they were lucky enough to come across them. First couple jobs I had didn't offer healthcare and I had to build up my resume to earn a job that did, so what. Providing people access to healthcare in the long run is cheaper than using our very expensive police force and legal system to deal with mental disorders and addictions on our streets. Better than the damage caused to family structures as they struggle amongst themselves to figure how and who should help pay for and take care of grandpa. And of course there are young hardworking people out there who prior to getting up the ladder of success take a spill of some ice while heading to work and wind up needing a hospital visit. Treating healthcare like a perk is sort of like playing monopoly with people's lives. If they land on the wrong square too bad so sad for them. That isn't healthy for society. In monopoly there can only ever be a lone victor. We should strive to help make the most people win that we can. There was a day when you were solely depended upon others. You did not step out the whom earning all your received. I spent at least the first several years of my life just being given food, shelter, an education, love, etc without being asked to do a single thing for it. And the day will come when you and I are too old to contribute will again need to efforts of other to feed, house, and protect us. You say even food isn't a right yet I bet you would climbed the tallest mountain and slayed the biggest dragon to ensure your family had food without expecting anything from them in return. We are a communal species. We need each other. Corperation is how we evolved. It is important that we care about each other. Mutual trust within a society is a huge part of where our sense of safety and security comes from. Team work grew the first crops that made bread possible. He would all still be hunter gathers if everyone throughout history had the attitude you are prescribing. All money is debt. That is how our system works. Our system can only grow and create new money through debt. What does being diverse have to do with anything? Why exactly is being more racially diverse be a road block? and I don't think any of my tax dollars should go towards military operations I oppose, police enforcement of drug laws I disagree with, and etc. That isn't how it works. A person doesn't only contribute to public education if they have school age children whom will receive the benefit. Moreover the safety net programs are cost effective. They stimulate more revenue than they use. Where did that money come from; to build the infrastructure you reference? No taxation, just donations from salt of the earth patriots? This is how progress begins. You start with a goal than work to achieve it. Cities control how they zone. Perhaps areas currently zoned for business can be change to residential, perhaps new public transportation is needed, but whatever the solution outright dismissal is only a hindrance. We are far more populated today than we were 60yrs ago. Only make sense that we would need to change a few things. We have many cities in this country like Detroit and Oakland that have struggle over the last couple decades do to sprawl and white flight. Millennials desire to live in the city rather than commute an hour to a suburb may help rebuild many of those cities. It also help lighten traffic on our roads. Why do you view the mere desire to be closer to work as a negative?

@ TAR, I try to empathize with you; I tuly do. I try imagine your feeling abscent of my own personal judgement and see the world through your eyes. Doing so I see similar tendecies in myself. When I read about people demanding $15 a hour as a minimum wage for entry level work part of me reflects on the time I spent making less than a third as much and how many year I spent working my way up just to see $10 a hour much less $15. I see kids taking on incredible amounts of debt attending college and part of me feels they should be working full time, attending a 2yrs school first, saving money, and then transfering to a University. I see a world that is changing and by direct comparison to my idealized youth it simple doesn't messure up in terms of hard work, self reliance, and etc. Thing is that is all just noise. I am sure when Upton Sinclair's The Jungle came out there were people who had done hard labor as kids felt the upcoming generation simply didn't know hard work the way they had. The attitude goes all the way back to when fire was first used. All the humans who had spent winters without fire thought those who grew up with fire were soft...haha. That is no way for a government to manage policy though. Constantly looking to ensure everyone has it bad as everyone who came before them. I also see the mortality you feel. You won't be here forever and that is more immediate today than it was 40yrs ago. I see in my own life the way places I use to go are torn down and gone. Once great people or institutions are no more. There is a tangible feeling that my world is slipping away. Then I step back and remember that it isn't my world. It doesn't belong to me.There are billions on this rock. That thing that I once treasured which was torn done and replaced by something else whcih is now someones else memorable thing. Everyones little girl will become someone else wife and their kids will become anothers grand parents. The feeling that my world is slipping is egocentric and fleeting. I own no one and nothing. There is no my world; never was. I am part of the world and not its owner. This is just a chat on the internet. You lose nothing by entertaining the thoughts of others. There is nothig to be won or lost. So why be stubburn? Why not step back for a few posts and try to play devil's advocate against yourself? Try to look at the ways evil socialist medical systems have worked Try be part of this discussion rather than just stakig out a position and owning it.

You are complaining here about what you believe Phi for All would do "if" and not addressing the reality of what is. It is an empty self serving extrapolation. Predicting how Phi for All would feel about something "if" it were tried and then failed as a justification to not try in the first place is absurd. A heck of a lot more people voted in the two national elections ran on enacting Obamacare (ACA) than voted during the mid season elections campaigned on repeal. Ultimately the House voted on it, Senate voted on it (super majority to break fillibuster), Presidented signed it, and the Supreme Court upheld it. On top of that States opt in. That is it!!! That is every level of our governement TAR. Approved at every level. At what point do opponents have an obligation to give an ounce of their energy towards helping it work? We do not have Greece's system so they are meaningless to the point you are making. Just an empty attempt to say that socialist system do work. More over Greece is hardly the standard. The rest of this is free of specifics or contexts. "When market places go bankrupt", which market places, where, and when? Surely you don't mean all and everywhere? "kept raining raising fees and deductibles and you forget the high costs", this statement is all past tense; did this already happen TAR? Did we already move to a single payer system that raised fees and we all ignored it? Is this a projection of your worst fears are something yu are trying to say has happened? If the country wants it indeed. That is why it is on the table for discussion. The fact that we don't currently have it is not a legitimate reason to shelve it from consideration. WTF......? If guns are a problem target gangs, if drugs are a problem target gangs, if gangs are a problem yu trust your nieghbors with guns. This is rant isn't even circular logic. Have no idea what you are trying to say here. What is already working? Above you have mentioned a theoretical single payer system that doesn't actually exist, guns, gangs, Capitalist Communists, and Greece. Which bit are you specifically referencing here as a status qou that is working which Phi for All is ignoring? No one is passing judgement on your life; just lamenting about your posting style. That is what we attempt to do. However some people confuse respecting an opinion with compromising for the sake of appeasement. At work when I lend a suggestion that isn't incorporated into the plan I move on. The world doesn't stop for everything everyone has to say.

Is reality singular? There are various realities we (human mind) are able to define but what is reality as a total quantity? We exist is a world based on human concepts and not an absolute reality. When we hold a glass of water we understand it to be a solid holding a liquid but is also all just atoms and on another level as just all energy. Reality is the point where we choose to ground ourselves but not exactly a tangible certianty outside of the values we provide it.

@ TAR, you are misrepresenting reality a bit. Liberals do not follow MSNBC the same way Conservatives follow FoxNews. You are trying to paint a picture where bothsides, liberal and conservative, are equally bias and partisan but that simply is not the case. While it is true than MSNBC is bias to left and FoxNews is bias to the right it is important to point out how few liberals follow MSNBC vs how many conservative follow FoxNews.

Because both are a matter of perception.

E=mc^2 is a version of Einstein's famous relativity equation. Specifically, it means that energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. While seemingly simple, this equation has many profound implications, chief among them being that matter and energy are actually the same stuff. Pure energy in the form of motion can be converted into matter, through the creation of a particle, which has mass. However, as the equation implies, it takes a huge amount of energy to create a tiny bit of mass.http://www.livescience.com/32363-what-does-emc2-mean-.html Hearing and thought are not one in the same. Deaf people can think despite not being about to hear. Can you better explain what you believe "I hear my own voice in my mind" means? I don't want to start walking down the road talking about electrical impulses and brain function if you are under the impression that there is sound vibrating in your head, coming from your soul, that you are hearing when you think.

I agree completely. In my opinion analogies are great for describing interpersonal situations but are mostly just a lazy convinience when explaining functional processes. The better one understands the subject matter they are dicussing less they should need analogies unless that which they are seeking to explain is behavioral/emotional. In the case of an emotional subject an analogy may help trigger a similar state of feeling. A boxing analogy may be easy to create to lighten someone's spirits after they lose a job or spouse but an analogy explaining how the Earth rotates around the Sun is more tricky. Better to just explain some things in dry terms.

I understand that it is just an analogy but, excuse me for saying so, it is a poor one. All the information on the Internet is generated by computers. The innformation you are referencing requires computers; no computers, no Internet. The Internet is multiple computers sharing information and not multiple computers tapping into the existence of information. When a single computer breaks the Internet is still there because other computers are still there. Break enough computers and bye bye Internet. Break any single computer (destory) and bye bye all unique informant that specific computer stored. Matter is energy and empt space is sort of a meaningless term. Perhap you meant vacuum; either way it doesn't related to the biology of the brain.

@ TAR, I have no doubt religion helps a lot of people. I have no doubt many people close to suicide have sought help at church. I am not denying that it can help. I am simply saying that statistically it does not appear that the prevalence of religion in a community changes the trends. You can provide that false by linking stats should a connect between lower rates of suicide in cities and states with larger religious populations. Other than that I feel it is a waste if time to discuss because I am not denying that any given individual(s) can be help by religion.

Depression studies are different that suicides, alcohol, and drug use. How religious a city or states is, based on people's polled preferences and the number of churches, does seem to impact the rate of suicides, alcohol, and drug use.

You are correct. Nothing I am writing speaks to white male suicide and religion. iNow's think sliced the increases in suicide up deeper than other stats we had reviewed before did. It basically links the increase on white female suicide to the overall increase in white suicide. So while males still make of the majority of suicides it is actually white females in the south and Midwest that are driving the overall numbers up. Also, I am not saying religion hurts. I am saying it doesn't statistically appear to help. At least not in terms of number up churches or the percentage of a specific population that claims to be religious.

Yet the stats provided by iNow show that the southern states and Midwest have higher rates of suicide. Specifically for white females. Hose areas are the most religious in the country. I provided a link impost #68. So religion isn't providing enough of a structure apparently.

Is light inside or outside of a candle? Light travels and can fill a space where a candle is inanimate and stationary. Which part of a candle holds heat? I'm for light. It' said light is in a candle? It is also said that reflections of light are of light and not in a candle. What say you?

@ Alkaloids03, "aware" is how you define conciousness. Aware of what? Our minds do many things we are not aware of. There was a many with retrograde amnesia named Henry Molaison. He could not form new memories. At least not ones he was aware of. He basically woke up each day thinking is was the same day unaware of time passing. Everyday having to be introduced for the first time to people that he met with everyday for years. Despite his inability to remember events or time he researchers found he was able to develop motor functions. His ability to improve his coordination for tasks remained intact despite the fact he could not recall and was not aware of every having performed these tasks. I recommend reading up on his case. I think to some extend it may partially answer your questions about different types of conciousness. Because if you are defining consciouse as aware Henry Molasion was developing skills without consciousness. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Molaison