waitforufo

Yeah, like the negative feedback that the people will shoot back.

You have an interesting way of looking at history. Reagan brought the Soviet Union to its knees through military might. He rolled back the iron curtain to the east side of baltic states. Then to prevent their utter collapse he propped them up to prevent anarchy in the east. All you see is a soci-economic victory? You should spend a little more time reading history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_begin_bombing_in_five_minutes click the audio. Having guns means we will never have to use them against our own military. Having guns tells our government that we the people have the power. That is why we have the second amendment.

My argument is not hollow. Please explain how human beings have changed since the 1700's when American liberty was the crowning achievement of the enlightenment? I didn't dodge your question as much as I didn't see the relevance. How many megatons did Ronald Reagan have pointed at the Soviets? How much money was Reagan willing to spend on more advanced weapons to defeat the Soviets. Is that how you define non-violence? When asked if he was afraid of ending detente and restarting the arms race he said "no we'll win." Saying that Reagan was non-violent is a bit of a stretch don't you think? If anything Reagan proved guns work in preserving liberty.

Suspecting his parents is an interesting conclusion to jump to. He is an adult. I see no reason to blame anyone but him. From the early reports he sound like a person incapable of accepting responsibility for his own life. Racism provided him with a scapegoat. A story as old as time He let that scapegoating build to murderous hate. Losers like that also want to be famous. Now he is. News channels are causing soap sales to soar. Politicians are grinding there axes promising legislation to fix root causes. If you are looking for root causes his name is Dylann Roof. No need to look further. Give him a trail and if guilty put him away. That guilty verdict sounds like a slam dunk to me with a confession, eye witnesses, and video. I'm sure there are trial lawyers right now chomping at the bit to get his case and show that he is just another innocent victim of society. A society of bad parent, guns and liberty. What a dangerous volatile mix. I don't think that strategy will work, but I'm sure we will have to hear about it until we puke and it spends lots of tax dollars. That's the nature of our modern version of the Roman circus.

I was not in favor of this expansion. Ah, the Fox News meme. Why is Fox News so important to your political narrative? Why do you watch it? Fox News does't tell me anything. I don't watch. I don't recommended any television news. They are just trying to sell the products of the companies that advertise on their program. They will tell you anything to sell those products. That's their business. Same goes for Daily Kos. I have already mentioned my worries about government so I guess this is a rhetorical question. Thank you for proving my point. As I said, " All government seeks to limit liberty." Why do you want less liberty? It won't get you more security. See Ben Franklin quote above. Yes, I agree. More government is bad no matter who sponsors it. So lets have less of it and keep our guns. Agreed?

55, married for 34 years, three college educated kids, lots of cash. You?

So you are saying that it's not his fault he gunned down nine people because his mama didn't change is diapers enough when he was a baby? So do you think his parents should go to the gallows with him? My father gave me guns on my 12th, 16th, and 21st birthdays. I do however get traffic violations now and then. Maybe if pampers were available when I was I child, instead of cloth diapers, I wouldn't speed or fail to yield the right of way from time to time. My mom is still alive. I guess it's time for another parenting guilt trip.

Why is it that you think human beings have changed since the founding of the United States?

As a culture we have decided that we love our liberty more than our lives. We understand that this experiment in self government depends on the belief that our liberty is more important than our own lives. We accept the price that must be paid for liberty. We find nothing primitive in it. It is not just English lords that want our liberty. All government seeks to limit liberty. The second amendment exist to remind our own government who really has the power. Why do you think that those that want more government also want to take our guns away? I could come up with quotes like this all day, but what would be the point? Our love of liberty at the expense of our own lives is woven into the fabric of our DNA. It is who we are as Americans.

When that point is reached, we will have anarchy.

The only part of the above that I disagree with is the word "instead." Replace that with "in addition to firearms training" we are on the same page. I'm sure however that the police, particularly in big cities receive such training. Also, all the shooting incident reporting and investigations are designed to strongly discourage shooting. The police in the US carry firearms. To do so they must be range qualified. This qualification is in the interest of public safety. If the police hit their targets, innocent bystanders are less likely to be injured. Police firearms training is also in part designed to reduce police fatalities. In the not too distant past police were trained to unholster there weapon, aim, fire two shots, reload if necessary, holster their weapon, evaluate, and repeat. Two shots because they were armed with six shot revolvers. This training was designed improve both speed and accuracy in the entire weapon use process. This training was changed after an FBI study on police fatalities found that a significant number of dead police officers had holstered weapons including two spent cartridges. So they changed the training to unholster, aim, shoot until empty, reload, evaluate, holster their weapon, and repeat. This new training reduced police fatalities and injuries. Finally, we want the police to win gunfights. They are the good guys.

While all of those 399 deaths are unfortunate, the ratio should not be surprising. The police receive significant firearms training. They are trained to shoot to kill. They are trained to keep pulling the trigger until their gun is empty. In stress situations people naturally perform to their training without thinking. Most civilians receive no training. At best most civilians take a few shots at a range, where they barely aim and never take score or attempt to improve their performance. Training significantly improves performance.

What would be the problem with a one-world government? They could put me in charge.

And if we don't stop them we are back in the Sudetenland in 1938. My guess is that the occupant in the White House will choose "piece in our time."

Ten oz, Sorry if my comments were too personally directed. I haven't see the things your post references in a long time. Since the 80's really. Does your team go to disco? Last time I have seen such issues people still smoked at their desk. Maybe I was just born with natural corporate sensibilities. Those women in your office just might be the boss one day. Corporations are always looking for women candidates to promote to make their EEOC numbers look better. And why not? Women are equally capable to men. So if you are going to be networking, they are the ones with which to network. I have promoted women. One of them later became my boss. At the time my upper management didn't like her. One of them told me she was a bitch. It told him she's a bitch that brings in her projects early, under budget, blow targeted COGS, and exceeding technical requirements. Let's hope we find more like that one. That is why I told my daughters that when someone calls you a bitch you're winning. You see the difference between me and others on this forum is that I think individuals through there actions can change society. You don't need government. You just need to do the right thing. That woman in the office is likely supporting a family. Why not help her get ahead? When you and a co-worker are going to lunch invite her along. She is on your team right? Work is hard enough without jerks creating an uncomfortable work environment. So don't do it yourself. People make choices in their lives you don't understand. It's a free country and they have to live with the consequences. I never sat through one of those training sessions that the entire time I'm sitting there thinking "didn't people's mothers teach them this stuff?" But as a manager I have found that such training is necessary. Do I think discrimination plays a part in the wage gap. Sure. I think the root cause however is that women have different goals than men. I don't see that changing. If it does change, I don't think government should have a role.

Having children is a personally rewarding experience which is well worth the costs. That includes career costs. Also others should not pass judgement on how parents decided to share such burdens. It is none of the business of others. Finally, the government should not decide how society should favor such decisions. In a free society we choose for ourselves. People without children or with at home care giving partners have the time to make the companies that we work for more successful. We benefit from that and we should thank them and celebrate their higher pay. Do you and your fellow male co-workers think women have cooties? Why aren't you inviting your female co-workers to off hour social and networking events? Women are a lot of fun at such events. Are off color jokes that important to you? May I suggest that you grow up and step up. Can you get into trouble doing this? Not if you make it a gathering of more than two. If your management is segregating women to their own projects, you need to find a new employer. The one you are working for will soon be sued out of business. The sooner you get out, the smaller the chance you will find yourself sitting in the witness chair testifying against your company and yourself. Now having said that, I'm wondering how many in person and/or on-line training classes you have attended on this subject. How many times has your company's legal department made sure you know that your behavior will not only get your company in trouble but that you can also personally be sued. If they haven't told you that you should be reporting your male co-workers for telling you off color jokes, they have been remiss. If your co-workers are are telling you off color jokes, who else are they telling? And you didn't do anything to stop them. What do you think is going to happen when the defendant says, "we all tell each other off-color jokes. Just ask Ten oz." But you know what, it's really pretty easy. Speak to others as if you mom was listening. Then you have no worries.

And if the answer isn't "not much" and personal choices do have an impact, then little or nothing needs to be done by government or employers. Something you simply won't even consider. In fact you attempt bully people off the forum who bring them up. I have never suggested people "stop having babies." Being a parent is a very rewarding experience. I personally think those that chose not to have children are missing out on an important human experience. I choice they are free to make. Choosing to have children has costs. Those costs can differ for individuals based on their parenting agreement with their partner. There are lots of choices in that parenting agreement between parent partners, and some may give workplace advantages to one parent in the partnership. These are choices that should be made by the parents without the involvement of the government or employers. If the co-workers of the advantaged parent don't like that advantage, well too bad for them. An advantaged parent may be able to "work more hours." That advantage is paid for by the other parent partner. So any solution that would negate that advantage would be unjust to the other parent partner who paid the price. Married people compete as a team. They decide for themselves what winning means and then strive to achieve that. They peruse their own happiness and I hope they catch it. If that catch is a disappointment, well we all make choices that don't pan out. Are individuals discriminated against in the work place. Sure they are. Does that include women. Yes it does. Two common ways is to assume that this woman will act like "most" women and the other is that this woman acts just like high performing men, but that doesn't make men in the workforce comfortable. I'm sure there are many more. Those women have a discrimination case. Those cases are individual not group based. Court rulings on such cases may have a broader impact. I doubt such cases will close your wage gap.

Fine, but I still believe it is fair to ask "what are women doing wrong." The Atlantic article I posted discusses that. Also, the idea of making overtime, or complementary time if you are salaried, illegal is simply pissing in someone else's life choices. It is simply saying that my lifestyle choices put me at a disadvantage to my competitors, so those other choices should be illegal. Sorry, your choices your problem. If women make such choices more often then men do, then women will be more impacted then men. If women are less assertive or confident then men in the workplace, they will have lower salaries then men and it will be their fault. Now if a company assumes that an individual woman is going the make choices common to most women and acts accordingly then that's a problem. That problem is solved by treating people like individuals not groups. Liberals seem to have a problem with individuality. They only see groups. This entire topic is dedicated to that premise. It says look at my chart. There is a gap. Women are discriminated against. Something must be done. Any argument that says maybe women make other work/life balance choices is completely dismissed. So don't treat individuals as if they will act according to the common behavior of groups to which they may belong. Treat them like individuals based on their own individual behavior. There you go, problem solved.

I have two educated daughters in the work place. While my wife chose to be an at home mother for 16 years, she to is educated in engineering and now owns her own business. I have a strong vested interest in women not being discriminated against. Having said that, I disagree that the issues I have been discussing are simply fringe issues. Both of my daughters were passed over for promotions and were angry about it. I asked both of them if they found time to tell there bosses that they wanted the jobs they felt passed over on before the positions was filled. Neither of them did. I told them not to make that mistake again. A promoting manager only has to be told by one person that "I didn't ask to be promoted", to make them prefer asking candidates over the non asking candidates. Even if the asking candidates are less qualified. Requesting candidates have more ownership of their new position than those given a promotion. Same goes for engineers asking for lead design tasks on a project. They get those leadership tasks and the experience they bring. Also expecting the business world be be something other than it is often leads to disappointment. So if your life choices hold back your career, that is the result of your choices and is not something that should be corrected by government. We all have to live with the consequences of our chosen work/life balance. If tragedy strikes your life and leaves you a single parent, yes that will set your career back. That in part is why they call such events tragedies. Compensation should be causal and positively correlated to performance. If a person can get as much done during an 8 hour day, 5 days a week as someone putting in 10 hour days six days a week, both people should be compensated the same. If the person that puts in the 60 hour work gets more done, they should be compensated more and the 40 hour worker should be happy their hard working co-worker is get the extra money they deserve.

Competence is essential for good employees. I'm a director. Hiring and promoting people is a regular part of my job. Confidence however is essential for leadership promotions. Those that don't demonstrate confidence won't get those jobs. That included senior and principal engineering roles. You can deny this fact all you want. You can believe its wrong all you like. It's just the way corporate employment and promotions work. The government allows H1B visas. Sure they are lobbied by corporations, but the government can say no. Once they are allowed, all corporations have to use them to stay competitive. So while the screwing is coming from corporations, it can't happen without government blessing. Success depends on both confidence and competence. You know that. The big problem we have with productivity vis i vis other countries is that they are hungrier than we are. First literally. Second, they watch our TV and visit our web sites. They want to live like middle class Americans and will work very hard to get there. Again, confident people are risk takers. They move projects forward by force of will. Part of their reward is being put in charge. The rules of that game are never going to change. No one is going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Things get done in corporations because they are pushed by those driven to succeed. Risk takers dedicated to their corporate success. Your idea of illegal overtime won't even get past the Democratic party. Labor unions would have a fit. Union labor contracts guarantee overtime hours. H1B visas are just a way to bring in low cost STEM field labor. These people are perhaps one small step up from indentured servants. Step out of line, or ask for more pay, and its back to the third world for you. You will continue to hear about the shortage of STEM workers until STEM workers are paid minimum wage. The fact that STEM workers are not paid minimum wage is proof to corporations and their lackeys in government that a shortage of STEM workers exists. At least when that minimum wage day comes, there won't be a gender gap in STEM fields, and the social nirvana of everyone being equally screwed will be achieved. Along those same lines, notice that there has been a concerted effort to get more women in STEM fields. Of course, they accept lower pay and are more timid than men. If women took the advice of the Atlantic article I posted, not only would the pay gap close, but we would all make more money. What ever happened to those feminists of my college years that wore those pins that said "uppity women unite!" My wife was wearing one of those the day I met her. We need more of those confident aggressive women.

Well, at least I have all that money and all those assets to console me in my suffering. ...and the meek will inherit the earth. Well good luck waiting for that. Business is competitive and therefor favors those that compete. Enter the arena without confidence and you are sure to fail. I have personally received promotions to positions where I was missing most of the job requirements for no other reason than no one else applied. With regard to competence, I have succeeded at tasks were others failed by simply entering "Not Applicable" to task requirements that I did not understand and no one could explain to me. I always figured that if no one challenged that entry during review, it was the right call. When challenged and still no adequate explanation was provided, I figured the requirement meant whatever I wanted it to mean and then provided a very low effort response. You would be surprised how accommodating reviewers are when you replace "NA" with a controlled document number where that document contains a one paragraph statement explaining why the requirement is not applicable because no one can define it. Such documents never get challenged. Competence isn't just an individual thing, it's an organizational thing. Challenging your organizational competence takes confidence. What you are doing is putting your reputation on the line. Fail and it could be the end of your career. That is why such moves are accepted. The people that make them understand the consequences. They are also accepted because forward progress must be made. You have competitors and stagnation is failure. Any business that follows your good ship lollipop understanding of a congenial workplace will fail in competition in the real world. Working for failed companies wont close the wage gap for women. If you get the government to force such nonsense, your nation will fail to nations that understand the nature of competition. Just look around, its happening now.

An interesting article on confidence and the gender pay gap. http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/04/the-confidence-gap/359815/ Some of my favorite points.. I always taught my daughters that being called a bitch meant they were winning.

Not mine.

I'm suggesting that since you believe that women who spend a period of there lives raising there own children take a "back seat" to their working husbands, that you should also consider it fair to give such women credit for a portion of there husbands salaries. Doing so would reduce the pay of men and increase the pay of women. Your links do not consider that. Another thing your studies don't include is that people that work more that 40 hour per week have more job experience than those that don't. Ten years of 60 hours a week is the equivalent of fifteen years of experience. So men who do so gain more experience over the same period of time than women, while the wives of these hard working men benefit from the pay. By the way, I believe that when two people marry they legally become one person with common assets and common income. So my salary is my wife's salary and vice versa so no one takes a back seat.