Liberty Pen: Martha Burk: ‘The Gender Pay Gap’

Source:Liberty Pen- Martha Burk on the John Stossel Show. 

Source:FreeState Now

“Feminist author Martha Burk (“Cult of Power”), educator Warren Farrell (“Why Men Earn More”) and Sabrina Schaeffer of the Independent Women’s Forum discuss the reasons men are often paid more than women.”

From Liberty Pen

The gender pay gap is only a real issue as far a concern, if men are being paid more simply because they are men. That if employers pay their male employees more money simply, because they are male and not female. Because of course that would be real gender discrimination.

But if men are paid more because they tend to work jobs that pay more than jobs that women tend to work, that of course that is not gender discrimination, but is called capitalism and the private market.

If women were simply being paid less because they were women and employers decided to pay their male employees more than their female employees, then there would be a national scandal. And all sorts of civil rights lawsuits would be filed and it would be all over the news.

Men and women should be paid and generally are for the work that they do. If men and women are literally working the same jobs with the same experience and have been with the company the same period, but the man or woman is doing a better job than the other and gets a bigger raise, or gets a raise while the other doesn’t, then how is that unfair: that is how private enterprise works. People get paid for the work that they do.

It would be anti-business and a bad business practice to pay employees male, or female, just because of their gender. Especially if they are less productive and it would also send a bad message. Because you would be telling the mediocre employee that they can make more money by being mediocre. And telling the productive employee that doing a good or great job won’t make them more money.

Minister Malcolm X VS Dr. Martin L. King

Source:Tom Richey- Dr. Martin L. King and Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X, perhaps in 1964.

Source:Real Life Journal

“Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X were both civil rights leaders seeking to solve the problems of racism and inequality in the United States and provided leadership in the Civil Rights Movement, but they did so in different ways. Martin Luther King, following the example of W.E.B. Du Bois, pursued integration with whites on an equal basis. He sought cooperation with sympathetic white leaders and pledged himself to the doctrine of nonviolence. Malcolm X, in the tradition of Marcus Garvey, saw a better solution in black nationalism. Like our Founding Fathers, Malcolm X refused to embrace nonviolence and swore to uphold his rights by any means necessary.

This video should be helpful for AP US History students who are seeking to make meaningful comparisons between civil rights leaders.”

From Tom Richey 

I have a lot of respect for both Dr. Martin L. King and Minster Malcolm X. But where they are different relates to what part of the civil rights movement that they represent.

Dr. King, was the most important leader in the 1960s civil rights struggle because without his non-violent approach those laws simply do not get passed. Because non-African-Americans wouldn’t take this movement seriously. And basically would’ve seen this movement that was of course multi-racial and multi-ethnic as thugs, criminals and terrorists.

Because the Dr. King wing of the movement was non-violent, the so-called mainstream media took it seriously and gave it fair coverage. And as a result Americans took noticed of it and got involved especially young people, but public officials and celebrities in entertainment that had influence. As well so these marchers and activists were seen as peaceful, mainstream and responsible.

But where I give the edge to Malcolm X, was his movement was freedom from start to finish. And didn’t see the future of the African-American community as dependent on the New Deal, or Great Society. But was someone who was a big believer in education and opportunity. So people would have the freedom to take care of themselves and not have to live in poverty. And would’ve continued to push this approach of empowering African-Americans and perhaps others, to have the freedom to live their own lives. And not have to live off of public assistance in order to take care of themselves.

Dr. King on the other hand was about redistribution of wealth. Taking money from the wealthy to take care of the poor. Which would’ve been the next stage of his movement had he lived. But what Malcolm X, was pushing for was empowering a whole community to be able to take care of themselves and create their own wealth instead.

Dr. King and Minister Malcolm, are the two most important players in this movement. I think that is obvious but they represented different wings of this movement. And moving forward post civil rights of the 1960s would’ve pushed different economic agendas.

The Runaways Rock Me: Lynda Carter- Just One Look

Source:The Runaways- Wonder Woman Lynda Carter.

Source:Real Life Journal

“Just One Look – Lynda Carter. From The 1978 lp ‘Portrait’.”

From The Runaways

Just one look and you see a gorgeous sexy baby a wonder woman. Lynda Carter, is truly special which is why she’s truly a Hollywood Goddess. Gorgeous, baby-faced adorable, tall with a great body. Great voice, which is why she can sing.

And is someone whose almost completely responsible by herself for making Wonder Woman the hit show that it was by herself. Because the show Wonder Woman, didn’t exactly have a lot of great material to work with. Simply not believable, it starts out during World War II in the 1940s and then moves to present day when the show was on in the late 1970s.

The writing was fairly cheesy to the point you might of thought it was 1945 when you watched it. Even when the show actually took place in present time back then. Would have been 1977, 78, 79, etc. But Lynda Carter kept people watching it, because she was Wonder Woman.

CATO Institute: Roger Pilon- ‘The Constitution and the Rule of Law’

Source:CATO Institute- Professor Randy Barnett speaking at CATO about his book.

Source:FreeState Now 

“Following the New Deal, the Roosevelt administration sought to increase federal regulation of private industries through manipulation of the Supreme Court. Speaking to Cato University, Roger Pilon described how this became a pattern that eviscerated the enumerated powers and lead to the modern Executive State.

Video produced by Blair Gwaltney.”

From the CATO Institute 

People especially on the Right like to talk about what’s called American exceptionalism, but what actually makes America exceptional and different even from the rest of developed free world, gets to things like our individualism and diversity, and that we promote our individualism and diversity. And we get our individualism and American exceptionalism thanks to our U.S. Constitution. (That the Far-Left likes to say was written by old white men and therefor out of step with the current times) 

The U.S. Constitution has things like yes the First Amendment, which guarantees our free speech, but also rights like the Second Amendment, the right for us to be able to defend ourselves.

The Fourth Amendment, which is our Right of Privacy as well as well as the Fifth Amendment which guarantees our property rights, so government can’t take our property away without probable cause. 

The Tenth Amendment that limits the power of the Federal Government. So they can’t do whatever they want, but instead their power is limited. 

We are a liberal democracy, which means free adults have the Constitutional Right to live their own lives. And not be interfered by government without Probable Cause. Basically as long as we are not abusing others with what we are doing. 

We are a liberal democracy with probably the most liberal Constitution in the World. We have constitutional rights that other democracies just doesn’t have. Because they are social democracies and less individualistic, that believe one of the roles of government is to take care of their people and even at times protect people from themselves.

Our Constitution might be out of step with others in the World. But that’s because of how free we are, which is what liberal democracies are about. Not because we are doing something wrong.

Sean Hannity: 'Then & Now On The War On Terror'

Source:Media Matters- with a look at Sean Hannity. I can't take the blame on this.

Source:FreeState Now

"Hannity's opinions on NSA surveillance differ depending on who the president is." 

From Media Matters

To try to translate what Sean Hannity is saying here: (even though I wouldn't recommend trying to do that yourself) he was in favor of the so-called War On Terror and the extra surveillance tactics by the Federal Government, before he was against it. An old paraphrase from Senator John Kerry from 2004 over the Iraq War. 

What does being in favor of the War On Terror before Sean Hannity was against it mean? In the 2000s under President George W. Bush, when Hannity would stand inline everyday to try to pay President Bush money to kiss his ass. the WOT was a convenient, partisan, talking point to use against Democrats, especially left-wing Democrats and make them look Un-American and not strong enough to defend America. Now that we have a Progressive Democratic President, the WOT is a convenient, partisan talking point that he can use against the Obama Administration and their supporters and say that the Democrats are in favor of Big Government and Big Brother.

This is just a perfect example of why Sean Hannity is an hypocritical asshole when it comes to the War on Terror. Clear example of the state of the Republican Party right now where they don’t discuss and debate issues like the War on Terror, but simply look for ways to oppose Barack Obama. 

If President Obama came out in favor of flat tax and eliminating the corporate income tax, Republicans would accuse him of supporting a middle class tax hike which is what a flat tax is and being fiscally irresponsible for being against the corporate tax. And the same thing with estate tax, or making English the official language of the United States. If the President supported them on those issues, they would suddenly oppose him.

The War on Terror which before January, 2009 was the Republican Party’s favorite war ever especially with their Neoconservatives, is a perfect example of this. It’s not the War on Terror, or any other issue that hyper-partisan Republicans like Sean Hannity used to publicly support that they’re against. Its Barack Obama that they’re against. 

President Obama  represents everything that the Far-Right in America are against: American diversity, African-Americans coming to power, less power for Caucasian-Americans who use to rule most of the country, young Americans, an economy that works for more Americans and just the wealthy and I could go down the line.

The War on Terror, God’s greatest gift to mankind other than electricity and air conditioning when George W. Bush was President of the United States. But now that Barack Obama is President its big government on the loose, with no one to fight back against it. And we need Congress to step in impeach President Obama in order to stop this. Which is how hyper-partisan Republicans in and outside of the Tea Party look at Barack Obama on really any issue that they at least once agreed with him on. 

Their issues, are their issues and as long as you disagree with them they’re more than happy to defend their issues. But once you agree with them, or try to find common ground they automatically take the other side.

ESPN: UFL 1985- Memphis Showboats @ Portland Breakers

Source:ESPN- The Memphis Showboats playing the Portland Breakers, at Portland Civic Stadium, in 1985.

Source:Real Life Journal

“Portland tied a United States Football League record by picking off six Mike Kelley passes, the last one to set up Tim Mazzetti’s 44-yard field goal with no time remaining as the Breakers upset the Memphis Showboats 17-14.

Kelley had only been intercepted five times all season before Saturday night’s troubles.

The Breakers, who snapped a six-game losing streak, also set a USFL mark by returning the interceptions for 120 yards.

The loss snapped the Showboats’ four-game winning string to drop their record to 8-6. Portland is 4-10.

Memphis dominated the contest offensively but the turnovers kept Portland close. The Breakers also successfully appealed two officials’ rulings by use of television replays. One of the rulings negated a 69-yard punt return for a touchdown by Henry Williams early in the final quarter.”

From USFL Forever

Unlike with Memphis, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Birmingham, and a few other USFL cities, there wasn't even much of a major college football background and history in Portland, Oregon, let alone a major league pro football history. So there was never any real need for a major league caliber American football stadium, in Portland, at least before the Breakers moved there in 1985. Which is why they played at a big, minor league, baseball, which is what Portland Civic Stadium was essentially, not a football stadium.

Source:ESPN- the Showboats and Breakers from 1985.

Playing pro football in a baseball park which is what Portland Civic Stadium was before they converted it to a soccer stadium. And Portland will need a football stadium if they are going to get another major league pro football franchise.

Memphis and Portland are markets that the USFL should’ve been looking at back then and should be looking at today. If they are serious about coming back. Something they’ve talked about since 2011-12. Because these are markets that are not currently occupied by the NFL and they wouldn’t have to compete with the NFL for their fans.

Memphis and Portland are major markets that can both support major league football franchises. Which is what the old USFL was and what a new USFL would be. If they get an agreement with the NFL about training their players in the spring.

Days of Our Lives: Kirsten & Marlena Argue

Source:Days of Our Lives- left to right: Deidre Hall & Eileen Davidson.

Source:Real Life Journal

“Feud Days of our Lives Marlena VS Kristen” 

From Blue Pop

This is from a 2007 scene with Dr. Marlena Black (played by Deidre Hall) and Kristen DiMera (played by Eileen Davidson) but the video is long available online right now.

Source:Days of Our Lives- Dr. Marlena Evans (played by Hollywood Goddess Deidre Hall)

I don’t want to make this scene seem less than it is, but I love watching these two gorgeous, sexy, adorable, women interact with each other. Marlena attacking Kristen proves that she is not as adorable, sweet and innocent as she looks, that Big Baby can attack and is more than capable of defending herself and protecting what is hers when she believes she needs to.

Kirsten playing this sexy, gorgeous yes, but a tough bitch, who doesn’t have many if any limits on how far she’ll go to hurt people she despises like Marlena.

These two characters Kristen DiMera and Marlena Evans (played by Eileen Davidson and Deidre Hall) literally hate each other. And Kristen literally using Marlena’s biological son Eric and her stepson Brady to hit Marlena, by having affairs with both. Which is a Hurricane Katrina size disaster waiting for both men to have a women like Kristen who is always looking for her next move and who and where to strike at against. And Marlena knows that, because she knows Kristen and that is what this fight is about. That she is not going to let Kristen use her sons.