Go Home

DOWNLOAD (282)
WMV QuickTime
PLAY (184)
WMV QuickTime

Barack Obama today signed his first bill into law, and boy was it a good one. Is it just me or has this man done more good in eight days than George Bush did in eight years?

Washington Post:

The bill is a response to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that said a person must file a claim of discrimination within 180 days of a company's initial decision to pay a worker less than it pays another worker doing the same job. Under the bill, every new discriminatory paycheck would extend the statute of limitations for another 180 days.

The plaintiff in the case, Lilly Ledbetter, argued that she did not become aware of the pay discrepancy until near the end of her 19-year career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala.

The Bush White House and Senate Republicans blocked the legislation in the last session of Congress, but Obama strongly supports it and the Democratic-controlled Congress moved it to the top of the agenda for the new session that opened this month.

Full remarks below the fold

THE PRESIDENT: All right. Everybody please have a seat. Well, this is a wonderful day. (Applause.) First of all, it is fitting that the very first bill that I sign -- the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act -- (applause) -- that it is upholding one of this nation's founding principles: that we are all created equal, and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness.

It's also fitting that we're joined today by the woman after whom this bill is named -- someone who Michelle and I have had the privilege to get to know ourselves. And it is fitting that we are joined this morning by the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. (Applause.) It's appropriate that this is the first bill we do together. We could not have done it without her. Madam Speaker, thank you for your extraordinary work. And to all the sponsors and members of Congress and leadership who helped to make this day possible.

Lilly Ledbetter did not set out to be a trailblazer or a household name. She was just a good hard worker who did her job -- and she did it well -- for nearly two decades before discovering that for years, she was paid less than her male colleagues for doing the very same work. Over the course of her career, she lost more than $200,000 in salary, and even more in pension and Social Security benefits -- losses that she still feels today.

Now, Lilly could have accepted her lot and moved on. She could have decided that it wasn't worth the hassle and the harassment that would inevitably come with speaking up for what she deserved. But instead, she decided that there was a principle at stake, something worth fighting for. So she set out on a journey that would take more than ten years, take her all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, and lead to this day and this bill which will help others get the justice that she was denied.

Because while this bill bears her name, Lilly knows that this story isn't just about her. It's the story of women across this country still earning just 78 cents for every dollar men earn -- women of color even less -- which means that today, in the year 2009, countless women are still losing thousands of dollars in salary, income and retirement savings over the course of a lifetime.

Equal pay is by no means just a women's issue -- it's a family issue. It's about parents who find themselves with less money for tuition and child care; couples who wind up with less to retire on; households where one breadwinner is paid less than she deserves; that's the difference between affording the mortgage -- or not; between keeping the heat on, or paying the doctor bills -- or not. And in this economy, when so many folks are already working harder for less and struggling to get by, the last thing they can afford is losing part of each month's paycheck to simple and plain discrimination.

So signing this bill today is to send a clear message: that making our economy work means making sure it works for everybody; that there are no second-class citizens in our workplaces; and that it's not just unfair and illegal, it's bad for business to pay somebody less because of their gender or their age or their race or their ethnicity, religion or disability; and that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory, or footnote in a casebook. It's about how our laws affect the daily lives and the daily realities of people: their ability to make a living and care for their families and achieve their goals.

Ultimately, equal pay isn't just an economic issue for millions of Americans and their families, it's a question of who we are -- and whether we're truly living up to our fundamental ideals; whether we'll do our part, as generations before us, to ensure those words put on paper some 200 years ago really mean something -- to breathe new life into them with a more enlightened understanding that is appropriate for our time.

That is what Lilly Ledbetter challenged us to do. And today, I sign this bill not just in her honor, but in the honor of those who came before -- women like my grandmother, who worked in a bank all her life, and even after she hit that glass ceiling, kept getting up and giving her best every day, without complaint, because she wanted something better for me and my sister.

And I sign this bill for my daughters, and all those who will come after us, because I want them to grow up in a nation that values their contributions, where there are no limits to their dreams and they have opportunities their mothers and grandmothers never could have imagined.

In the end, that's why Lilly stayed the course. She knew it was too late for her -- that this bill wouldn't undo the years of injustice she faced or restore the earnings she was denied. But this grandmother from Alabama kept on fighting, because she was thinking about the next generation. It's what we've always done in America -- set our sights high for ourselves, but even higher for our children and our grandchildren.

And now it's up to us to continue this work. This bill is an important step -- a simple fix to ensure fundamental fairness for American workers -- and I want to thank this remarkable and bipartisan group of legislators who worked so hard to get it passed. And I want to thank all the advocates who are in the audience who worked so hard to get it passed. This is only the beginning. I know that if we stay focused, as Lilly did -- and keep standing for what's right, as Lilly did -- we will close that pay gap and we will make sure that our daughters have the same rights, the same chances, and the same freedoms to pursue their dreams as our sons.

So thank you, Lilly Ledbetter.

Share This Post

Link To This Post


85 Comments
Samson-'s picture

hey, wal mart, fuck you, better watch out

johncage1000's picture

No, it's not just you. Hope there's more good to come, but it's a fine start.

Have a good day.

ronnie dobbs's picture

Is it just me or has this man done more good in eight days than George Bush did in eight years?

It certainly feels like it and perception is reality.

pathetic existence.


"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."

---Southwest Airlines

ConcernedCanuck's picture

Wow. Even women in a craphole like Canada get paid the same wages in a factory as a man. Wowzers, next you will be outlawing slavery!!

LeftandLeft's picture

I guess it's easier for you to make lame jokes than it is to give Obama credit.

But of course, up there real men speak French and they have had the same woman as head of state since Truman was President.

God save the http://www.denis.co.uk/acatalog/queen-insite-...


“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder

Bob Roberts's picture

CC is completely invested in claiming over and over again that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. This means he has to argue that Obama = Bush, Kucinich = Cheney, Feingold = Rove, Gore = Reagan, etc.

ConcernedCanuck's picture

You want to give a politician credit for moving the US to almost the same level as other nations have been for decades? Man, you guys are setting the bar lower and lower all the time.

When I was in fourth grade I got all A's on my report card and ran home to show to proudly show my dad. He looked at my card handed it back to me and said, "that's what you're suppose to do." To this day I always give credit when it's deserved. Everyone deserves a pat on the back when they do something good Canuck...even Presidents.

ConcernedCanuck's picture

motivate a political leader. He already ran for Prez and won with his promises. If he still needs motivation, then he is in serious trouble come next election.

I simply stated that we all appreciate being told good job. If your wife never let you know that she was grateful for you, you know where, you'd probably have a fit. You're being disingenuous again.

miss_kitty's picture

it's got on the books and having to write new ones to back them.

Assholes who supported the 6 month SOL on this I can guarantee were telling their constituency that the ERA amendment was not needed, that civil rights amendments and laws covered women's equailty.

Guess they were lying.

BTW, Congratulations Canada, on getting a second area code!
;)

ConcernedCanuck's picture

well it wasn't easy to get that second area code. Had to run new phone lines to the igloo!

ricky's picture

Governor Palin?


“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder

miss_kitty's picture

you know, to one old Fuck face Huckabee congratulated Canada for saving, at the gentle urging of Rick Mercer? You know, before Old Stupid Haid would say 'Congrats' he had to be assured (by Mercer) off camera that it was not a 'controversial igloo'

ChrisM70's picture

Obama hasn't done that much good - he's just UNDONE a lot of bad.

It's nice to have an intelligent and logical President again.

FilthyHarry's picture

Everytime he lifts his pen its like he's slapping Bush's hand, "No! No! No!"

Media Concepts's picture

The U.S. is at war with Al Qaeda. They declared war against us in the 1990s. They attacked us on 9/11/01 and before (U.S.S. Cole, U.S. Embassies in foreign countries). The U.S. is entitled under international law to defend itself by attacking the people who attacked us. Many of those people and their organizational structure are in Pakistan, near the border with Afghanistan. When the U.S. attacks these people, sometime innocent civilians nearby are killed. That's due in part to the fact that Al Qaeda, like other combatants who use terror as a tactic, live and operate among civilians. It's tragic when civilians are killed during attacks on Al Qaeda, but it's not a war crime. It has, sadly, happened in virtually every war that has ever been fought on this planet.

You seem to be arguing that all wars are by definition war crimes. That's simply not the case.

BobD's picture

Oh look, a republican troll defending Bush by saying Clinton got us into a war with Al Quada.

Bush committed war crimes. Rumsfeld sold WMD to Saddam. Rumsfeld profited from innocent death and destruction. Suck on that for a while troll.

Bob Roberts's picture

Another bozo who claims people he disagrees with are "trolls".

Point out where media concepts says Clinton got us into a war with Al Qaeda or where he defends Bush. All his post says is that killing civilians as collateral damage while attacking legitimate military targets is not a war crime. Well, guess what...it's not.

If terrorist launch missiles or mortars from a civilian area and the counterstrike kills some of those civilians, no war crime has occurred.

Samson-'s picture

you write (in referencing the earlier post): "killing civilians as collateral damage while attacking legitimate military targets is not a war crime"

that is not so cut and dry.

there is a lot of grey area there. some would argue that any instance of a civilian death is a war crime. fine. i appreciate the morality of the sentiment. i don't find it 100% realistic, but i understand. that said, there are instances where "killing civilians as collateral damage while attacking legitimate military targets" might be a war crime. a lot depends on what exactly happened.

taken to a silly extreme: if you nuke a city to kill an al qaeda operative, you have committed a war crime. it was a legitimate target, but the means and the tactics were not taking into account anything but the target.

i think UAV attack in pakistan was very problematic, personally. most problematic is the impetus it gives poor pakistanis to join the ranks of extremist organizations, or just tacitly support.

really, it is no way to win hearts and minds--and THAT is the ONLY way to win the so-called war on "terror"

Media Concepts's picture

My response was to TheTruth but I accidentally listed it as just a new comment. Bush and people under his command committed lots of war crimes IMO, such as invasion of Iraq, torture of prisoners, Abu Ghraib, Blackwater murders, etc.

But Obama's defending the U.S. by attacking Al Qaeda, who both declared war on us AND made war on us, just isn't a war crime.

FilthyHarry's picture

Lobbing high explosives into a sovereign nation without permission is bad enough, add in the resulting deaths of innocent civilians and I'm sure there is a case in there.

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Then that would make FDR a war criminal for the fire bombing of Dresden and Berlin, and Truman for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

FilthyHarry's picture

But the difference is we were declared war against those states. In this case we're at war against a stateless enemy but nonetheless attacking in sovereign territories.

Note: I'm just arguing factual differences. I don't rightly know whats what. Except Bush is a war criminal.

Boston Blackie's picture

Yes, they are war criminals! There was no compelling reason to fire bomb Dresden and other German cities, except to assuage Churchill's lust for revenge. The U.S. had already fire bombed evey major city in Japan and did not need to use atomic bombs. A blockade would have done the job!

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

I don't think the initial invasion of Iraq was against International Law, but rather our own. It was in violation of the War making powers of Congress, the Police Action law of 1973 as well as the AUMF.

Otherwise I agree with the rest.


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

Hechicera's picture

You are wrong legally on Al Qaeda. And, to make more heads here explode (sorry!) it's the same legal problem with any of Israel's actions against Gaza being "war crimes". So, you are right about war crimes partially, but not for the reason you state.

Al Qaeda is not a state, not even a state actor. A war with it by a state is not legally defined. So how can the US have any legal right to declare war upon it? Sadly since Gaza has ambiguous legal status, it leads to problems there determining what laws could apply in determining war crimes legally.

Bush and Rumsfeld have broken laws however. As a state, it is bound by many conventions in its behavior, internal and international laws.

Without clear entitlement to international law, actions are tried in the court of world opinion according to their perceived morality and humanity. Leading to epic fails for Bush, Rumsfeld, US Policy, Israel's military actions and Al Qaeda's terrorism all around.

Media Concepts's picture

You don't get to declare and then make war on other countries and then claim you're immune from having the attacked country come after you because you're not a "state." That's just silly. If that were the case, countries would simply have their armies secede from the country and then just attack whoever they wanted.

On the contrary, a good argument can be made that not just the non-state terrorist groups, but the countries that host them (Pakistan, Afghanistan, and yes, even Saudi Arabia) are legally subject to attack by the country those groups attacked first.

Anyway, I think the argument is getting a bit academic. You want to go after Obama for defending the U.S. against Al Qaeda? Good luck with that.

FilthyHarry's picture

Who declared terrorists as being stateless as a justification for torturing them? Labeling them as stateless, then attacking states seems like it'd break a rule somewhere.

Media Concepts's picture

I agree with you that Bush broke all kinds of laws by doing what you said.

I wanted to respond to TheTruth's initial comment, but I don't want to participate in a thread hijacking. The post was about the Ledbetter Act. I'm happy that Obama helped to correct this injustice by the conservative Supreme Court.

FilthyHarry's picture

"You want to go after Obama for defending the U.S. against Al Qaeda? Good luck with that."

People like to set it up that the choices are 'anything is justifiable in our defense' or 'don't defend ourselves'. This is ridiculous on the face of it.

Look you want me to give you a million dollars right? What if my method is to give it to you by shoving it down your throat? You may say, 'Hey! Stop choking me to death!' then I say 'Hey! You want this million dollars don't you?' See? Ridiculous.

Media Concepts's picture

No, you set up the straw man by writing that I wrote that "anything is justifiable in our defense." I wrote no such thing. Of course Presidents are not allowed to do "anythng" in the name of defense. That's what Bush did. I have been pointing that out here for years. As I indicated in an earlier comment, I think what Obama did in this case was a proper response.

But boy, I think that Ledbetter Act was really great, don't you?

FilthyHarry's picture

"You want to go after Obama for defending the U.S. against Al Qaeda?" That statement implies going after Obama for something he did, equates going against him for defending the U.S. Which of course is entirely untrue.

Hechicera's picture

you are responding like a troll.

My answer to your first paragraph could be called "the history of covert action" since people developed inter-people laws. Well, yes you can, and if you can get away with it, you will.

"a good argument can be made" is not an international law.

Yes, the argument is academic. But your point "entitled under international law" is an academic point. Your throwing it back as then a state would take no action against a non-state actor is rather childish don't you think? Your last paragraph other than correctly pointing out this is an academic argument makes little sense.

Bob Roberts's picture

allows states to respond defensively to an armed attack. An armed attack can consist of terrorists firing missles across an international border.

If terrorists shoot missiles from a civilian area, the attacked state may use the right of collective self-defence to respond with military strikes, even if civilians die as a result. The qualifications on this right of self defence are that it must be necessary, proportional and immediate.

I suggest that responding to a terrorist attack by launching rockets or air strikes at the location from which the terrorists attacked is likely to meet the tests of necessity and immediacy. Also, just because some civilians died does not necessarily mean that the defensive response was not proportional.

Hechicera's picture

Article 51 is the basic, no brainer of "Well of course you can and will defend yourselves." That doesn't legally define a war. To have a war crime, you need a war. Right now, to have a war, you need at least two legal states.

Assuming the sovereign nation containing the attacked site does not declare war (Pakistan, Afghanistan under occupation) or in the case of Gaza has no legal ability to declare war .. then the determination of war crimes is in uncharted legal territory. There is no legal "war".

We cannot be "at war" with Al Qaeda, since they are not a state. We could be "at war" with Pakistan, but, we aren't! Prosecuting a war crime in a war that is not a war legally gets legally weird. "You suggest" is as legally binding as "a good argument can be made". My point is, no law applies for any presumed war crimes. We have a new class of military action, that is not legally defined.

Perhaps, the UN should define laws for this type of conflict. As it would apply as equally to US strikes against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (before occupation), Pakistan now, and Israel's actions against Gaza (now) and Hezbollah (inside before their integration into the government) ... that would be a fun show to watch.

Bob Roberts's picture

I'm aware of the gaps in international law, which is why I make suggestions about what conduct would, or would, not constitute a war crime.

You admit the law is ill defined and then have the balls to criticize me for not pretending that the law is clear cut? Nice.

Hechicera's picture

So, I have balls for pointing out that you don't pretend to disagree with me on my main point? Does your head hurt yet? Mine does.

I'm not used to people arguing so hard that they agree with me, and then getting mad about it. But, cool, at least I got balls out of it. Now if I can just figure out what they are good for. I'm afraid to ask after this exchange.

LazyCosmos's picture

"The U.S. is entitled under international law to defend itself by attacking the people who attacked us. Many of those people and their organizational structure are in Pakistan, near the border with Afghanistan. When the U.S. attacks these people, sometime innocent civilians nearby are killed."
The problem I have with this, is the implicit assumption that every time a bomb is dropped, it is dropped on Al Qaeda operatives. Is your level of trust that high, given the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and Weapons of Mass Destruction claims?

cheer up the cheerleaders here dont expect obama to do much but walk and chew gum at the same time thiers very little concern for dead and maimed children in iraq afganistan or palistine ummmm forgot lebanon!

Shadowgm's picture

... was a kid's cartoon back in the 1970's.

FilthyHarry's picture

It requires a willful desire to not do the right thing to say that being discriminated against each time she got a raise, each time a guy was given a job, or a raise, each time her paycheck was issued to her over 19 years doesn't count.

In what other instance does negation of the first crime or infraction automatically negate all following instances of the crime or infraction? Ridiculous.

Kind oif like saying if a woman is raped and doesn't report it then any time she's raped there after it's legal. Or some some one breaks into your home and steals a few small minor items so you don't report it since the cops won't do anything anyway and then when you get cleaned out it's not a crime because you didn't report the first time. I'd have to say the SCJs that ruled against Lilly Ledbetter must have been smoking some crack rock or something.

Truth_Critic's picture

How long have we had this woman's discrimination crap and who started it?


Study the symptoms not the virus...

Hechicera's picture
.
Truth_Critic's picture

Rib tickler! :-P


Study the symptoms not the virus...

Shadowgm's picture

... that God fellow, when he did some minor surgery to some bloke named Adam.

Since around 2500 years ago, when abrahamic bullshit (judaism/christianity/islam) was first invented. Before then, women were the center of societies.

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Diabolus est Deus Inversus

I'm hungry now dammit, gotta go shopin :-)


Study the symptoms not the virus...

curtilingus's picture

Obama licked a lot of problems his first few days in office.

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Actually Chapter 11, section 51--55 on the Geneva Convention attempts to balance the presence of innocent civilians with combatents among them with the military mission of those that oppose them.

And in either case the US is not a signatory to the ICC. The ICC is closely linked to the UN, and the US dominates the five permanent members in the SC, all of whom have veto power that alone can forestall any further action.


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

From the book, "Why Do Men Earn More Than Women" by Warren Farrell:

"Why do men earn more than women? Because they deserve to, argues this contrarian challenge to feminist conventional wisdom. Men work longer hours at more dangerous and disagreeable jobs. They more readily accept night shifts, hardship postings to Alaska and entrepreneurial risks. Men get in-demand degrees in engineering, while women get degrees in French literature. Female librarians earn less than garbagemen, not because of discrimination, but because so many applicants compete for the safe, clean, comfortable, convenient, fulfilling jobs women prefer. Indeed, the author insists, statistics show that women and men with equal experience and qualifications, doing the same job, for the same hours, under the same conditions-get paid the same. Farrell, author of "The Myth of Male Power," usefully points women towards high-paying, male-dominated fields that are becoming female friendly and suggests that ambitious women marry stay-at-home husbands. But he considers men the real victims, taken advantage of because of their innate chivalry and social expectations that they trade earning power for love and sex and be "willing to die to support the wives and children." He decries anti-male discrimination in occupations like teaching, nursing and cocktail-waitressing, and pillories comparable worth initiatives as "spoiled-brat economics." A whole chapter is devoted to "genetic celebrities"-i.e., beautiful women (exemplified in photos of same) whom men shower with free dinners, gifts and home repairs and who "marry up" into cushy lifestyles paid for by workaholic husbands. Ostensibly a road-map to workplace equality, Farrell's portrait of pampered, ungrateful women and stoic, self-sacrificing men may strike some readers as an unhelpful caricature."

For more, and tips for how women can get ahead in the workforce, I recommend reading: http://www.warrenfarrell.com/articles.php?id=4

FilthyHarry's picture

Because women who work longer hours at more dangerous and disagreeable jobs, that more readily accept night shifts, hardship postings to Alaska and entrepreneurial risks and get in-demand degrees in engineering still make less than their male counterparts.

I agree with you Harry. The female dominated profession of nursing, which has more than it's share of night shifts and disagreeable jobs still sees men (clearly the minority) making more money than their female counterparts. Some may chalk this up to men having better negotiating skills, which may be true, but some of it may be attributable to the fact that many employers still consider a woman's income to be "secondary". As in, you should have a husband who makes more money than you to "take care of you".

IF men got paid better merely because they are better negotiators or bigger risk takers, and thus equally qualified women could be counted on to do the same job for less, wouldn't women dominate the executive positions in this country? If there isn't sexism, and two people come in to your office asking for the same job with same qualifications, but one is willing to do it for less, who do you hire?

Fanon's picture

What I can tell you is this, and I can only speak from my experience in nursing. Women are told the job pays X dollars an hour and a majority of them say "ok, that's what the job pays", the men I know in nursing say "ok, the job pays X, but I am looking for Y, what are we going to do about it?" and they typically get to what they want. It's certainly not universal, but I have seen it happen on more than one occasion that when a woman says the same thing (I want Y) they are told no, this is what it pays. The men have been told, let me "see what I can do" and voila, they get more money.

FilthyHarry's picture

The dynamic of men asking for more and getting more does exist, I just don't think its the operative dynamic. If it were who'd hire men at all? Why hire the male nurse asking for more if you know a female applicant will accept less?

Shadowgm's picture

I'm at work at 4AM in the bloody morning, and so are over a half-dozen female colleagues, including engineers, producers, writers, and on-air talent.

Warren sounds like another sore loser who cherry-picks data to fluff his own conclusions.

LeftandLeft's picture

Get ready for an ass kicking.

I don't know what is.

Wow, guys complaining they can't be cocktail waitresses? How many cocktail waitresses aren't allowed to be bartenders? And really, you want to talk about danger? Handy, grabby assholes who think you're a free slut and second hand smoke. Lucky lucky men, I say.

As for the "bigger danger" bullshit cited -- equal pay for equal work? I love how these fucking equivocation specialist assholes construe that to mean: "I as a waitress deserve the same as a high rise window washer." That's not at all what it means. It means the guy managing the office and the woman managing the office get the same pay, the guy washing the window, and the woman on the scaffold next to him gets the same, and that women who have the ability are allowed and considered the same as a guy for raises and job openings.

As for guys and nursing? Please. What decade was this written in? I spent ages being ill, and had many male nurses, career nurses, in my travels throughout the health system. It's actually men in this culture who think nursing is for 'chicks only.'

This asshole you cite starts with "Women go into the military. Settle, because you'll never be any good" Eat me. Just fucking eat me. "Ladies, take advice from yet another guy who knows better than you, because he's a man and you are mere ladies." Ugh.

No thanks. I'll keep my own counsel on this one.

Shadowgm's picture

I've also worked with female photographers / microwave van technicians who have been out in the field running just as hard and fast as their male counterparts, including during riots and other breaking news stories.

Trying to sell me on 'men are more willing/capable and/or better suited to the tough jobs' is not going to fly.

WMK's picture

I remember so many Hillary supporters disparaging Obama back in the primaries, worried about how he might not show the commitment to 'women's issues' that Hillary would. It seemed like an identity politics divide and conquer moment - a way to cause 'the left' to eat itself.

I hope all those folks who posted so many anti-Obama screeds with thinly veiled man-hatred = political awareness have had their comeuppance today - and can admit they were wrong to fear/hate Obama. I recall how disgusted I was when the Bushies managed to screw over Lily Ledbetter and set economic justice for Women (ultimately for everyone) back ~50 years - by 2007 that was just another depressingly awful item in a LONG list of horrible injustices inflicted on our country by the Bushies. I am so happy that Obama is going through that LARGE list and righting wrongs - it will take him a long time to get us back to even a pre-bush level of 'normalcy' (a gov't that may not be perfect but at least it mostly does what it is supposed to) but his progress so far is very encouraging.

texasbob's picture

Obama has not done more in 8 days than Bush did in 8 years, but he has definitely done more GOOD in 8 days than Bush in his whole lifetime.

FilthyHarry's picture

Obama does more good wiping his ass than Bush does in 8 years. But thats not a compliment to Obama as it probably applies to 99% of the people on the planet.

A President who seems to be a decent man willing to work for a living. Change did come.

Selkirk's picture

Before you start congratulating yourselves on righting a wrong, perhaps it's time to evaluate the "great injustice" that this act is intended to address. I think the conventional wisdom on this one got it wrong.

I think the key failure of your argument is the part where "you think". Theissue is where men and women complete the SAME task! NOT where a man is doing more then a woman as you're very lamely trying to insinuate.

While he's off to a good start, he could go one better: getting rid of limits on the presentation of evidence by the wrongly convicted.

In some states, there is a 30 limit of presenting new evidence after a trial. If a wrongly-convicted person obtains incontravertible proof that shows he was incapable of committing a crime and proves which person actually did it, it will be rejected on day 31. There are other idiotic laws that prevent the presentation of evidence, e.g. some states will only let you use it in one appeal, not built a case with it multiple times.

The court system is heavily weighted against the innocent whether due to corrupt police/prosecutors/judges, inept defence, perjury or other improprieties (e.g. Cameron Todd Willingham who was innocent and executed despite evidence proving his innocence that the state knew about).

Better still, how about a national moratorium on state-sponsored murder? Everyone knows it's not assigned equally or without prejudice.

"Is it just me or has this man done more good in eight days than George Bush did in eight years?"

Gee like that's really hard to do! Name ONE thing the Bush administration did good. Just one!

Shadowgm's picture

... they had the 'I don't think anyone knew ...' line down pretty solid.

- I don't think anyone knew terrorists would use airplanes as missiles.
- I don't think anyone knew Hamas would win the election.
- I don't think anyone knew New Orleans would flood.

Well yeah they WERE good at that. I guess I should have specified good for the country.

LazyCosmos's picture

So, if you have a hankering to illegally spy on folks, Congress will come to your rescue retroactively. If you are screwed out of wages and benefits, then Congress will name an Act after you? Take that to the bank.

Boston Blackie's picture

Why is it overlooked that Ms. Ledbetter received many poor performance evaluations during her years at Goodyear. After 1982 these reviews were used to determine pay raises!

miss_kitty's picture

men got equally shitty reviews AND raises while she was treated like a chick. That shit is thoroughly investigated, and I can guarantee you, if she was crap and no one else was, then this case would have been dismissed, never entertained by SCOTUS. I'm thinking there were plenty of shitty male reviews the were ignored when raise time was considered, because, after all "They're men, and they have families to support."

And as the recipient of [undeserved] bad reviews by a petty shit-eating asshole myself, I really think the review practice is a shit stain on the underpants of employment.

Shadowgm's picture

We had one 'manager' who redesigned the performance review form so that, basically, unless you were God, you would never get an excellent review. At best, you could pull an 'occasionally exceeds' ... and that was coupled with 'merit pay' - an excuse to avoid fixed percentage raises to union members (and we're talking paltry sums like 1% a year - less than COLA).

I was working nights & weekends, am one of the people in the shop that know/do just about everything, and was once told, "We're saving the merit pool for the guys who really work hard."

Roguette's picture

I was COMPLETELY DUMBFOUNDED years ago when I was employed by a firm MEETING and EXCEEDING the corporation's performance goals,when the yahoo manager for whom I worked told me"You're not a man,and you don't have a family to support"....[ I asked for a raise,after two years, commensurate with my documented performance.]

I'd NEVER heard that BS before-or since.

UPDATE:

Oh,that manager-he was fired(nothing to do with me),and I was eventually offered HIS position. But I already had gone on to WAY bigger and better things.

He went on to be fired a year or so later for stealing the client accounts and was working at a WalMart or some other loser place,selling tires,last I heard.

Poetic justice for a rethread.

Bob Roberts's picture

The Court did not justify its ruling on the grounds that her performance was worse than that of her male colleagues. The Court instead set a precedent that would affect all women suffering from pay inequity regardless of their performance.

When the Court decided that Ms. Ledbetter's case was barred because she had not sued within 6 months of receiving disparate wages (even though she could not have know that she was being discriminated against), the Court effectively prevented almost every woman from effectively suing for wage discrimination.

Samson-'s picture

eom

Roguette's picture

Look,if a shitty performance would have been the criteria for equal pay,Lily would have come off smelling like a rose.Especially in "Alabammy"!

Let's not forget the activities re: Alalbama politicos railroading Alabama Governor Don Segilman .

That state SUCKS-and swallows!

shag12@sbcglobal.net's picture

Another kick in the canjones directed at the good 'ol boys network.

Somedaysoon's picture

It has been against the law to discriminate since 1964 Civil Rights Act--but unfortunately for Americans the people in power do not follow the law--right Bush?

Comments are closed on this entry