text:
Total return year-to-date as of 03/05/2015 : 0.75%
Expense charge 1 : 1.67%
Inception date : 02/05/2008
Investment class : Balanced
Performance Comparison | |||||||||||||||||||
Performance Data as of 03/4/2015 |
Average Annual Total Returns as of 02/28/2015 |
Unit Values |
Net Change |
YTD Return |
1 Year | 3 Year | 5 Year | 10 Year | Since Inception | ||||||||||||
PIMCO VIT All Asset Portfolio - Institutional Class | $16.32 | -0.31% | 0.95% | 0.75% | 3.00% | 5.60% | -- | 4.20% | |||||||||||
Barclays Capital US TIPS 1-10 Years Index 2 | -- | + 0.04% | 1.12% | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
The performance data quoted represents past performance, and is no guarantee of future results. Your returns and the principal value of your investment will fluctuate so that your accumulation units, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance quoted above. For investments with exceptional performance, please note that performance fluctuates and currently may be lower than noted here.
The risks that this fund is subject to include allocation risk, underlying PIMCO fund risk, issuer non-diversification risk, interest rate risk, credit risk, high yield risk, distressed company risk, market risk, issuer risk, liquidity risk, derivatives risk, commodity risk, equity risk, mortgage-related and other asset-backed risk, foreign (non-U.S.) investment risk, real estate risk, emerging markets risk, currency risk, leveraging risk, smaller company risk, management risk, tax risk, subsidiary risk, short sale risk, value investing risk, arbitrage risk, and convertible securities risk.
For a detailed discussion of risk, please consult the prospectus.
TIAA-CREF Individual & Institutional Services, LLC, and Teachers Personal Investors Services, Inc., and Nuveen Securities, LLC, members FINRA and SIPC, distribute securities products. Intelligent Variable Annuity is issued by TIAA-CREF Life Insurance Company, 730 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017.
Investment, insurance and annuity products are not FDIC insured, are not bank guaranteed, are not deposits, are not insured by any federal government agency, are not a condition to any banking service or activity, and may lose value.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Post your Comment
link the link the table is displayed and other links were hidden if i want to click the next link i have to refresh the page instead i want to do is when i click the link the table should display and again when i click the link the table should
link link hey frnds can anyone plz tell me how can i store my videos as link in my database and can retrive the video using servlet by clicking on to that link .it may be confusing sorry about that and if someone can than plz help me
LINK LINK Thank you friend.cant we use single click instead of double click and also for four link u has given the example but i have 14 links in that case wat i should do
link link how can we give hyperlinks on data retrieved from the database and when a particular option is clicked it should be saved in another database and details related to that link should be diaplay and stored in the database
LINK LINK I have four links which link to a table,if i click one link...').style.visibility='hidden'; } </script>
  Show3 <
link a href tag as : Step2 : Use a id to select this using JavaScript or jQuery... action can be handled easily using JavaScript or jQuery can u give me the complete
Hypertext link Hypertext link What is a Hypertext link
Hypertext link Hypertext link hii, What is a Hypertext link? hello, A Hypertext link is a special tag that links one page to another page or resource. If you click the link, the browser jumps to the link's destination
Link to a website Link to a website I have created a mobile application.Now I want to insert a link to a website so that when mobile user selects that link he is directed to that website
HTML link HTML link How do I create a link
Hypertext link Hypertext link hello,, What is a Hypertext link? hii, A hypertext link is a special text that perform the linkage between two web page. roseindia site
HTML Link HTML Link How do I create a link that opens a new window
position of a link position of a link the table appears at the bottom i want it to be display at the top pls help me.Each link if i click it should display in the same position
attaching a link attaching a link I want the program code for , creating an application form and it is attached to our code, by clicking on this link, the form should be open
Link on Image Link on Image HTML link question mark Image can anyone please suggest how can i link the question mark image in HTML?
 Currency Converter <img src
mfmailComposeViewController link mfmailComposeViewController link Is there any way to get a hyperlink on email text using mfmailComposeViewController in my iPhone application? To get link on the text, you need to make it HTML enable
Hyper link
JavaScript link JavaScript link...; In this section, you will learn about the text property of Link object in JavaScript. JavaScript's Link object has the property text which allow the user to get the text
Html image link Html image link How do I link an image to something
Broken link list Broken link list Please provide me a java code to find the broken link list of url's for a given url
link border 0 css link border 0 css Hi, What will the css for making links border 0 in image? I am looking for example code for link border 0 css. Thanks
link list in c++ link list in c++ What is hash table in java,what is use? and how to use
php a href link php a href link i guess... we can write the href in a similar way as in html to create a link
link to other frame - Applet link to other frame how a button to open to another frame? and the frame can keyin the data and it can show at the previous frame
Dynamic link in JSP Dynamic link in JSP Hii everyone...I have stuck from last 2 days... Three columns i.e. souce name, Target name and Link. and that link should be only... to choose some checkboxes n save it in collection. So, for every link, we can select
Retrieve data by clicking a link Retrieve data by clicking a link In a page there are 5 links.Every link has a hidden value. According to that hidden value data should be retrieved from the database and data should be displayed in a new page.How to do it?Please
make a picture a link make a picture a link hello, What is the way to make a picture a link? hii, This is the tab for image linking
Countdown timer to show a link finish, a link appears. The thing is that my musical group will be presenting an EP.... The day arrives, and the link that leads to the songs appears. This is the code (you... and paste to the countdown code that I have for the link thing to appear...thanks
substitute image link a default image or link in the image source file
HTML link code. HTML link code. Description : It is also called hyper link. HTML provides... we wants to visit. Syntax : Link Code<...;/title>
Example of HTML Link


text:
Previously titled: Promise Parity in the Cabinet or Obama will not win
What Dr Long has to say concerning the Obama campaign's take on gender equity is disturbing and if true, indicates a serious failing on the part of the Democratic nominee. This obtuseness to the desire for equity will carry McCain to victory.
Please read Long's entire post before ranting about wizened old crones who support Hillary or vagina voters or dessicated PUMAs or any of that other sexist crap. I've cut and pasted it below to save you the clicking. All of the bolding is mine.
BY DR. LYNETTE LONG: Gloria Steinem, in her September 4th editorial in the Los Angeles Times, came out strongly against Governor Palin claiming the only thing women have in common with Palin is an X chromosome. I respectfully disagree.
Governor Palin knows what it is like to be a woman, a mother, a daughter, a sister - things the two men on the Democratic ticket can never fully understand. She knows what it is like to grow up invisible in an incredibly sexist society, to be stared at, groped, and sexually harassed. She knows what it is like to be smaller in stature than men and physically vulnerable. She knows what it's like to worry that you are pregnant when you don't want to be or that you are not pregnant when you want to be.
Sarah Palin knows what it is to experience the joys and sorrows of motherhood, to nurse a baby while holding down a job, to leave for work in the morning with a toddler tugging at your pant leg, or to have your children calling you at work to diffuse squabbles or ask for help with homework. She knows that once you get to work you have to speak twice as loud and twice as often to be heard and work twice a hard to go half as far. She knows what it is to be a member of the second sex.
Gender is the most fundamental human characteristic. The first comment made when a child is born is either, "It's a girl" or "It's a boy." From that second on, boys and girls live in parallel universes in the same culture. From the nursery room to the board room, boys and girls are given different messages about their respective roles in the world.
At the hospital they are given different types of names and wrapped in different colored blankets. Once home, baby girls and boys wear fundamentally different clothes and play with different toys. This differentiation extends through school where girls are given less attention, picked less frequently to answer questions and placed less often in advanced science and math classes. Once in the workforce, women are steered into lower-paying careers, paid less for the same work, and forced to juggle the responsibilities of work and home. You can't learn what it is to be a woman, unless you are one. You can't have a government essentially devoid of women that knows what's best for women. You can't legislate for women, without women.
After the last Democratic Primary was over and it was clear, Senator Clinton was not going to get the Democratic nomination, myself, and a small group of Clinton supporters met with Senator McCain and Carly Fiorina.
I personally explained to Senator McCain that women comprise well over half of the population, yet are underrepresented in every branch of government. I asked him loudly and clearly to choose a woman for the VP slot and to increase the number of women in the cabinet and on the Supreme Court. Senator McCain listened respectfully to my request. Representatives of The New Agenda also met with Carly Fiorina as well as members of the Obama campaign to make similar requests.
After the Democratic Primary, I was personally in contact with a member of Obama's Finance Committee. He left several messages on my office phone, "urging" me to support Senator Obama. We had numerous contentious conversations and I finally told him I would be happy to vote for Senator Obama and rally other Hillary supporters to vote for Obama but in return I wanted Obama to pledge gender parity in the cabinet.
I foolishly thought equal representation in government was a reasonable request. "What if there aren't qualified women you still expect us to appoint half women to the cabinet?" he replied. I was confused. "There are 300 million people in this country; you're telling me you can't find ten qualified women?" He responded, "You can't have that." We had no further conversations. There was nothing more to say.
Weeks later I approached a training session for DNC canvassers at a park in my neighborhood. Eager to practice their new skills, they all ran up to me, "Do you support Senator Obama? Do you want to donate money to the DNC?" After explaining that I was a Hillary supporter, I again made my request. I will support Senator Obama if he will pick a woman as his running mate and promise gender parity in the cabinet. The men in the group openly laughed at me and found my request ridiculous. I looked at the horrified faces of the newly minted female canvassers. "They're laughing at you too," I muttered.
Not one to give up, I contacted a daughter of a friend of mine who is a policy advisor for Obama. She assured me Obama was a good guy, so I posed my request to her. She generously responded, "I'll ask him."
When I did not hear back from her in a few days, I shot her another email. She told me how disappointed she was in me for making such a stupid request. Obama was on the "right" side of the issues. Why did it matter whether men or women legislated those issues? I guess the answer from Obama was No.
What saddened me was her mother was one of this nation's greatest champions of Title Nine, educational equity and gender parity. Her mother and I counted the number of pictures of boys and girls in text books, male and female cartoon characters, and documented the underrepresentation of girls in math classes in our nation's schools.
Yes, policy is important but who decides and delivers that policy is even more important. As Marshall McLuhan profoundly noted, "The medium is the message." Children incorporate many of their perceptions about gender by age five. Little girls won't understand if Sarah Palin is pro-life or pro-choice, believes in gun control or is a member of the NRA, but they will know the Vice-President of the United States of America is a girl and that alone will alter their perceptions of themselves.
I have given my loyalty to the Democratic Party for decades. My party, which is comprised primarily of women, has not put a woman on a presidential ticket for 24 years.
My party refused to nominate my candidate, Hillary Clinton, for president or vice president, even though she received more votes than any other candidate in history.
My party stood silently by as Hillary Clinton was eviscerated by the mainstream media.
My party was mute while the main stream media repeatedly called Clinton a bitch and symbolically called me and every other woman in this country a bitch.
My party was disturbingly silent when the main stream media commented on Hillary's body or the shrillness of her voice, reminding me and every other woman the fundamental disrespect we endure on a daily basis.
My party's candidate was mute when Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger openly mocked Senator Clinton from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ.
My party's candidate was silent when the rapper Ludicrous released a new song calling Hillary a bitch.
My party and its candidate gave their tacit approval for the attacks on Senator Hillary Clinton and consequently women in general.
I have a choice. I can vote for my party and its candidates which have demonstrated a blatant disrespect for women and a fundamental lack of integrity or I can vote for the Republican ticket which has heard our concerns and put a woman on the ticket but with whom I fundamentally don't agree on most issues.
If Democratic women wait for the perfect woman to come along, we will never elect a woman. We have to seize opportunity where it presents itself. Besides, the Democratic Party is no longer my home. I have no home, but this election I will make my bed somewhere else.
I respect Gloria Steinem's right to support the presidential ticket of her choice but she is openly trying to derail Sarah Palin's historic candidacy. As Madeleine Albright said, "There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women."
I will vote for McCain-Palin. I urge other women to do the same. I might not personally agree with Palin on every issue and I promise to the first person knocking on her door, if Roe v. Wade, or any other legislation that goes against the rights of women is threatened.
But in Governor Palin I find a woman of integrity, who not only talks the talk but walks the walk. I can work with that. I will work with that. When I walk down the street, I don't have Democrat printed on my forehead, but my gender is obvious to everyone and impacts every interaction in my life.
Since my country is far from gender neutral, right now for me gender trumps everything else. I urge other women to join me in this fight for equality. Sometimes opportunities occur where you least expect them.
Again -- you may not agree with Dr. Long, but perhaps you should attempt to understand her point of view.
WaPo published a profile of her in Sunday's paper: A Real McCain Supporter? Or Just a Clintonite on the Rebound?
It is incomprehensible to me that Obama cannot find ten qualified women for his cabinet. Isn't it time for the Democratic Party to do more for women than kick them in the teeth?
I leave you with this photo of Spain's Defense Minister:
If you find it disturbing or unnatural, you are part of the problem.
At about six and a half minutes in President Clinton addresses voting and mentions Dr. Long. Not by name, but in reference to her stance on gender voting. He says some interesting things about why people vote as they do -- even at times against their economic interests.
Dr. Long has a line from another blog post I found telling: "The Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee has never been a woman. How can I support a party that is primarily composed of women but run by men?"
She has a point.
Ms. Palin, for example, is not qualified for office and it has nothing to do with her gender. It has to do with her lack of foreign policy experience, her unwillingness to interact with the press, her attitude on policies related to the core freedoms of women, and many other things that would be problems even if she were a man. And McCain is showing himself increasingly to be not just going in a direction I don't like but outright unqualified, not just because of his choice of Palin, but because of the way he's stumbling around and shooting from the hip about the fiscal crisis.
To vote for McCain/Palin merely because of chromosome count will make a mockery of the notion of any real equality, and will risk setting freedoms back dozens of years, possibly compromising the health and safety of many women. The author may be sincere in taking her stance, and that's fine, but I am sincere in saying that I don't see the stance as adequately supporting the women in my life (and almost without exception those women concur with me on that point). So I'm going to hold my head high and vote Obama.
I'm going to "rate" this too so there isn't any possibility of claim that such opinions are failing only because don't get daylight. Besides, it doesn't hurt us to have some respectful opposition going on here.
I won't be voting for McCain in November either, but can't fathom Obama not being able to find ten women who can serve in his Cabinet or his being unwilling to entertain even the thought of gender parity in appointments.
My first reaction - Dr. Long assumes a whole lot.
Governor Palin knows what it is like to be a woman, a mother, a daughter, a sister - things the two men on the Democratic ticket can never fully understand. She knows what it is like to grow up invisible in an incredibly sexist society, to be stared at, groped, and sexually harassed. She knows what it is like to be smaller in stature than men and physically vulnerable. She knows what it's like to worry that you are pregnant when you don't want to be or that you are not pregnant when you want to be.
Sarah Palin knows what it is to experience the joys and sorrows of motherhood, to nurse a baby while holding down a job, to leave for work in the morning with a toddler tugging at your pant leg, or to have your children calling you at work to diffuse squabbles or ask for help with homework. She knows that once you get to work you have to speak twice as loud and twice as often to be heard and work twice a hard to go half as far. She knows what it is to be a member of the second sex.
I think Joe Biden, while not a woman, raised his children on his own for several years. He knows what it is like to raise children and work.
I don't really have any evidence that Sarah Palin knows any of those things. She certainly hasn't done much more than give lip service to the issues I care about as a mother. And from my reading of her actual work record, she seems to have actually worked a whole lot less than most of us. She also seems to have had much fewer restrictions on her in her workplace than most women. Ask around - there aren't many who can bring their babies in to nurse; we're lucky to get a private place to pump (and that's in a Fortune 500 organization).
Feminism for most of us is about much more than gender parity. I am sure there are 10 qualified women for the Cabinet, but to appoint them just because they are women seems to undermine the whole cause and set us back lightyears.
Little girls won't understand if Sarah Palin is pro-life or pro-choice, believes in gun control or is a member of the NRA, but they will know the Vice-President of the United States of America is a girl and that alone will alter their perceptions of themselves.
Well, maybe I don't want my not-so-little girl to think it's okay that the VP shoots defenseless animals, would disallow access to an abortion if she were raped, does not believe global warming is man-made or a priority, is clueless about foreign policy, why we went to war, or the economic mess we're in, etc.
When my very bright girl asks me, "Mom, how did she get to be VP?" I don't want to have to say, "because she's a girl, that's why. and pretty much the only reason."
I'm thinking Clarence Thomas.
Perhaps the Democrats have underestimated a certain sector of the female population's longing for a woman on the ticket. 24 years is a long time.
Regarding the cabinet posts, aren't you just a little disquieted by the refusal to entertain parity. It is pretty ludicrous to think there aren't hundreds if not thousands of women qualified to serve.
I do like the paragraph were you mention your not so little girl. You criticize Palin on issues, not gender garbage and that is refreshing and effective.
Of course, Obama would not make that promise. It would amount to pandering. I believe he's against racial quotas. Why would he then be for gender quotas?
Most of the post, I respectfully disagree. But the part I found utterly laughable: "I promise to the first person knocking on her door, if Roe v. Wade, or any other legislation that goes against the rights of women is threatened."
(1) I think she'll find herself out knocking real quickly. Just wait until the first Supreme Court vacancy occurs in a McCain administration. Or let's see if McCain would sign any pay equity legislation? How about contraceptive equity? Is McCain going to allow Congress to lift the Global Gag Rule? Will McCain continue the proposed Bush regulation that would restrict the dispension of birth control? Would McCain continue the current practice of denying servicewomen access to abortion, requiring them if overseas to fly back to the U.S. and obtain the abortion outside of U.S. military facilities? Would McCain support a domestic gag rule prohibiting Title X funding to clinics that make abortion referals (like Planned Parenthood), a measure he voted for in the Senate? Will McCain sign CIANA, a bill he has voted for that would make it a crime for any non-parent, including a grandparent, adult sibling, or religious counselor from accompanying a minor across a state line for an abortion? (Many women already have to cross state lines to obtain abortion services.) Will McCain seek to remove or weaken the Freedom to Access Clinical Entrances Act (FACE), which he voted against during the middle of the Operation Rescue violence in the early 90s? Will McCain continue to support the non-funding of the UNFPA, denying millions of women around the world access to life saving family planning services? Will McCain continue the Bush policy, which he has supported, of not including CONDOMS in AIDS/HIV prevention funding in places like Africa, a policy that puts women in danger of contracting the disease?
(2) When McCain is in the White House, political organizing against all the damaging things he will be undertaking will be key, but on most fights the real decision was made in November 2008. It's fine and dandy that she'd be knocking on doors when women's rights are threatened, but it won't matter much if you have McCain in the White House and a couple more Alito clones on the Supreme Court.
I don't know enough about Palin to question her judgment.
What do you think about having half the cabinet be women?
Regarding abortion, I don't think Dr. Long is worried about Roe. From what I read on her blog in other posts and at PUMA sites, some first and second wave feminists resent younger female disengagement from feminism and are willing to let Roe go.
You and I have talked about this in the past. Roe is not going to be an effective stick to beat these women back into their place. The democratic party needs to do better.
What is so terrible about pandering to women if it wins the election?
Well, we don't have to go into Roe quite yet. If Long isn't concerned about Roe, then her promise to go doorknocking to protect it is disingenuous.
The Democrats to win will need to talk about the issues that are the forefront of both female and male voters. But we can't attribute any past electoral failings to Democrats' focus on Roe, because they've generally been too afraid to talk about the freedom of choice during elections.
"What is so terrible about pandering to women if it wins the election?" One expects a certain degree of pandering, but you can't go overboard. Promising a quota on your Cabinet is even more obvious pandering to women than picking an underqualified woman as your running mate. Voters would be turned off by a promise to look at gender first and then qualifications in making important Cabinet decisions. Are there enough qualified women to fill half the Cabinet? I have no doubt there are enough qualified women to fill the entire Cabinet. But each position should be decided on its own merits.
Bill Clinton didn't say he'd use racial or gender ratios for his Cabinet, and yet he created the most diverse administration in history. I don't think you can look at Obama's reluctance to commit to a ratio as not being committed to diversity or women.
Dr. Long gives us two highly questionable, low-level, anonymous Obama "campaign sources." They are listed as "a member of Obama's Finance Committee" and "a daughter of a friend of mine who is a policy advisor for Obama"
Come on. Seriously? She met directly with McCain, but gives us only a friend of a friend as her Obama contact? I suspect that she never got close to Obama's real people. Gender equality in the cabinet is a worthwhile cause. I seriously doubt that Obama himself--who consistently shows outstanding pragmatic judgment and is married to a powerful woman and has two young daughters--would actually be opposed to such an idea.
Dr. Long has legitimate reasons to be angry about how both parties and our society treats women. But her endorsement of Palin is ridiculous. If her column endorsed Cynthia McKinney, I'd take her much more seriously (of course she wouldn't be getting MSM attention if that were the case).
And someone ought to remind Dr. Long that it was the democrats who last placed a woman on the high court. Someone needs to remind Dr. Long about how the republicans handled O'Conner's request that her replacement be a woman. About how the republicans trotted out Harriet Miers (aka Sarah Palin sans the photogenic family) and tossed her under a train—thereby securing another young anti-woman, anti-abortion justice on the bench.
As to finding Palin "a woman of integrity" she has not been reading what is true.
I admit I do not know who this woman is, tho I think Bill Clinton referenced some of her work the other day. This is pure bullshit ; it's just pure BS.
OMG accepting Palin as a substitute for what we've strived for all these years is just ... what? Senility?
I also think that the "member of Obama's finance committee" sounds like a straw man or a bit of a dimwit. It's not a question of whether there is a qualified woman out there, it's a question of whether that woman is the best candidate to serve the nation in that capacity.
What if the best candidates for fifteen cabinet posts were women? Would you still want to have parity and appoint some less qualified men?
Or am I out of my tree again?
Has she counted the number or women governors? Doe she know how many women mayors there are in our country? How many women sit on city councils? This is just cutting ones nose off to spite ones face.
We are facing the most serious economic challenges of our lifetime and are on the verge of an historic election. Pulling this crap is histrionic and unworthy.
According to the Economist:
"They make up less than 20% of governors and members of Congress. The number of women on the Supreme Court has recently fallen by half, from two to one, thanks to Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement."
I honestly think it is fair to say that this falls short of where it should be. But clearly there are much bigger impediments to reaching high office than gender, and much better bases for appointing or electing someone, too.
Turtle, I would hate for you to have to eat your shorts, but I really wouldn't be surprised if McCain announced a plan to bring unprecedented numbers of women into his administration. He actually employees more women overall and in higher positions of authority in his Senate staff than Obama. He pays them more fairly as well.
Pay inequity on the part of Obama toward his female senate staff has been another troubling issue. Obama pays his male staff about six thousand dollars a year more on average for similar work, while McCain's staff is paid about the same across gender lines with a slight advantage to women.
Not all women are pro-choice, but I don't know many who think getting paid less for the same work is right.
Turtle, I thought a little more about your shorts. Remember back when conventional wisdom was McCain would never pick a female VP? Our frat bro is no idiot and he is seeing the worth of a good pander in the polls. Do not be surprised if he pulls out the pander to women stops.
AA, I think you hit the nail on the head with your statistics. Women haven't really made much political progress for quite some time and Dr Long wants to see a female president before she dies.
ironman, thanks for returning and clarifying.
Underneath that rage is sadness, sadness that we are second class citizens in a country where we are the majority. What's especially disquieting to me is that many young women are blind to the sexist nature of the world in which we live. It's our job, each and every one of us, to educate them. Economically, women earn seventy-seven cents on the dollar for the same work compared to men. Women are in significantly fewer managerial positions, are less likely to own a business and more likely to live in poverty. Politically, women comprise fifty-two percent of the population and an even larger share of the voting public yet only sixteen of the current one hundred Untied States Senators are women. Similarly, only sixteen percent of the current members of the House of Representatives are women. There is only one female Supreme Court Justice on a nine member court and most remarkably America has never had a female president or presidential nominee. Women did not get the right to vote in the United States until 1920. The glass ceiling is real on both economical and political fronts. Men want parity for their daughters and granddaughters but not for the women sitting beside them. They are not going to give us the power that should be ours, we have to take it. Are we ready?
In that case the next bit of the Economist article I quoted might interest you:
"Some of the most culturally conservative states in the country, such as Kansas and Michigan, have female governors. In 1998 women won the top five elected offices in Arizona. Mrs O'Connor was arguably the most powerful voice on the Supreme Court for decades.
Women are also winning the most important of all gender wars—the war for educational qualifications. They earn 57% of bachelor's degrees, 59% of master's degrees and half of doctorates. And they are doing better all the time. In terms of higher education, women drew equal with men in 1980. By the early 1990s six women graduated from college for every five men. Projections show that by 2017 three women will graduate for every two men. The meritocracy is inexorably turning into a matriarchy, and visibly so on many campuses: the heads of Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Brown and the National Defence University are all women.
Boys, meanwhile, are more likely to drop out of high school than girls. They are also more likely to be consigned to special education classes or prescribed mood-managing drugs. Men are more likely to commit crimes, end up in prison, kill themselves or be murdered. Even their sperm count is headed south. The long-term result seems unavoidable: men are becoming ever more marginalised, while women are taking over the commanding heights of wealth and power."
I think it is an area that is more complex than a lot of people would allow. If I had to voice a single main gripe with feminism as it is usually practised, it would be this: feminist women who are already unimaginably privileged by comparison with the vast majority of the world's population are more preoccupied with becoming still more privileged than they are with improving the lot of women who are poor, oppressed, downtrodden, or even enslaved all over the world.
That is a generalisation, to be sure, but it certainly fits the kind of mindset quoted in the original post.
Which is the more central feminist issue - that there aren't as many women in Cabinet, or that 13% of American women are living in poverty? Or that 30% of the world's women cannot read?
As far as I am concerned the Presidency or a Cabinet post are plainly out of reach for nearly every American citizen, whether they could do the job or not. Class trumps gender. Anyone who is in a position to be affected by discrimination as to whether they should get a Cabinet post or not are already so well off compared to the rest of humanity that they should be ashamed of complaining about their status.
Just my thoughts.
That is akin to telling a domestic abuse victim who shows up at the emergency room with a broken arm to go home and be grateful her legs aren't broken.
Injustice and inequality should not be acceptable because American women eat regular.
You may not have meant it this way, but it sure is implied.
I have to disagree with the Biblio Files. This is not a valid opinion, because it leaves the politics out of of politics.
If that sounds silly, it's not really my fault. It stems from the fact that it is absurd to lump all women together as if the issues they faced were even similar. A well-off 21st Century Western woman has *much* more in common with a well-off man 21st Century Western than with nearly every other woman who ever lived, including less educated or less well off women in her own country.
It is more than fair for high office to go to those who are best qualified, in a gender-blind way. As far as the energies of feminists go, is ensuring that the rich and powerful get more rich and powerful the best place to direct them? How about making a change so that some women's lousy lives out there become a good lives instead, rather than working so that some already very, very good lives become slightly-more-very-good.
Or is the symbolism more important? I'm sorry but I just can't seriously accept that "parity" of numbers in cabinet actually makes a genuine difference to political and economic inequality, or helps even slightly with the serious problems that are being faced by women who really have no hope of ever being overlooked for anything like a cabinet post.
"A well-off 21st Century Western woman has *much* more in common with a well-off man 21st Century Western MAN than with nearly every other woman who ever lived, including less educated or less well off women in her own country."
I ask not to change the subject, but because what he said was surprising to me.
But those are minor details. This is the statement I take offense to:
"You can't have a government essentially devoid of women that knows what's best for women. You can't legislate for women, without women. "
I would much rather have a government that knows, and does, what is best for ALL Americans, one that legislates for ALL Americans.
This writer implies women are a monolithic interest group that shares the same values, the same vision for our country. Nothing could be further than the truth. If Dr. Long is really the liberal Clinton supporter she claims to be, I seriously doubt she shares the same values and vision as Sarah Palin. I know Hillary Clinton doesn't.
Secondly, I'll keep my pledge to eat my shorts if McCain goes all the way to the end of the Pander Road. I wasn't among those who didn't think McCain would not pick a woman. I predicted that Pawlenty was the most likely, but I thought a couple women were possible too. I just thought it'd be Kay Bailey Hutchinson, not Sarah Palin. I'll go another step further, if McCain made such a pledge, it will be stupid pandering and it WILL HURT him in the election.
Americans don't like gender or racial ratios. The Europeans seemed to have some success with ratios, but it is unpopular here. I doubt that will change anytime soon.
And if Obama is elected, my guess is there will be a lot of women on his Cabinet. If they are a minority of any significance, I'll eat my shorts in that instance too.
It is based on data provided by the Secretary of the Senate from McCain, Obama and Clinton. The gap is real and to me a damning thing. Unequal pay is a huge injustice.
To quote: The average pay for women who worked on the Senate staff of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of Illinois was at least $6,000 below the average pay for men working on Obama's staff. This held true whether the average pay was calculated for all of Obama's staff, only for his non-intern staff, or only for his staff making more than $23,000 on an annual basis. Obama employed slightly more males than females.
Check out the source if you wish - McCain, Clinton Pay Women Better than Obama
4. Dr. Lynette Long. BS meter starts to go into the red zone when Doctor is used by people who are not physicians or academics. Doubly so when such people attempt to assert authority outside their field. ( See Matthew DeC. on "symbolic".) Long bio never says doctor of what or degree from what mill. BS meter reacts same way to Rev., pegging out when they happen to be adulterers, defalcators, child molesters -- most Republicans know the drill.
4.5: life long democrat: Unless she was one from the moment of conception, clearly an outright lie. No pre - 2008 history in Dem. politics adduced or claimed. Once again symbolic in attempting to fortify her authority and the power of her conversion. Note the small d in democrat.
5. This obtuseness to the desire for equity will carry McCain to victory Voilà! The dog finally barked. (Btw, a terrible sentence syntactically and gramatically. Could even be misinterpreted as OMG, McCain's obtuseness...and you woulna want that now, wouldya? ) Where previously this dubious authority's reductive (also euphemism for BS) rant was modified by "if true" now the fig leaf is removed, the gloves are off, we are off to the races.
This is so bad at so many levels, dunno where to start. First, it's an assertion. Who says? Second, it's a prediction? By whom? The amazing Kresskin? Assertions can often be tested by substitution e.g. "This (McCain's) blindness to economic reality will carry Obama to victory" or "M's pecuniary peccadilloes...." or "M's notorious skirt-chasing....". But you get my point.
This is way too easy, and I'm not even getting any credit for this in
my lit crit class. LT, you've been prone to being too dismissive of OSers as "snobbish", "clannish" and what not. Perhaps, that's because there are many here that have even more finely calibrated BS meters than you currently seem to possess.
Your stuff is what it is. A propaganda piece to attempt to create a wedge issue (see further on same) out of this straw man/woman with Doctor Lynn as a stalking horse's a**.
I tend to respond in kind. Just so you don't miss the gist of this comment, I'll say it up front: Don't you bother your little canine mind with contrary views. Feel free to keep your nose stuffed up Obama's ass. I bet it tastes great.
But in detail...
As an indie voting for McKinney, I have no skin in the Rep/Dem game. I'll never need an abortion and so don't give a crap personally about Roe. If someone I give a damn about does need an abortion, I can afford to pay the air fare to California or New York where abortion will be legal just like it was before Roe. I've got the best universal health care this country can offer in the form of Tri-Care prime. Yeah my buddies are getting creamed overseas -- but you know what? Obama just wants to shift them from Iraq to Afghanistan. Obama and McCain both suck. They are owned by the same masters and neither will do a damn bit of good for women, universal health care or ending the war on terror/drugs. I may be privileged, but I'm not stupid.
You can believe I have a wedge agenda all you want - but the truth is as I wrote. I was sent a link to Dr. Long's post and found it interesting. She writes well and has a bone she's been gnawing for a while. I think there is a strong case to be made for more action on the part of Obama to keep women in his column. (ie, pandering)
There is nothing wrong or bullshit about checking out what people are saying. Dr. Long's editorial was also published in the Baltimore Sun on September 14th: In this election, putting gender first
President Clinton referred to it on the View when he discussed gender and racial identity voting. I'll admit I was surprised when I watched the clip and heard him say both types of voting made sense and he didn't have a problem with them.
So whether you like it or not, Dr. Long's bullshit is getting an airing.
But if you'd rather sniff Obama ass and not consider other views -- go right on ahead. Again, you're so far up his ass your tasting nothing but bullshit.
PS -- Feel free to tell Ph.d. types their degrees are crap as well. I'm not that sort of academic snob.
PPS -- If other commenters here want to say I'm a jackass full of bullshit then they are more than welcome -- but your sorry self coming over and putting the words in their mouth really takes the cake. Fuck off.
Dr. Long gives us two highly questionable, low-level, anonymous Obama "campaign sources." They are listed as "a member of Obama's Finance Committee" and "a daughter of a friend of mine who is a policy advisor for Obama." If this were still 2002, Dr. Long could have a job at the New York Times with sources like that.
Come on. Seriously? She met directly with McCain, but gives us only a friend of a friend as her Obama contact? I suspect that she never got close to Obama's real people. Gender equality in the cabinet is a worthwhile cause. I seriously doubt that Obama himself--who consistently shows outstanding pragmatic judgment and is married to a powerful woman and has two young daughters--would actually be opposed to such an idea.
Dr. Long has legitimate reasons to be angry about how both parties and our society treats women. But her endorsement of Palin is ridiculous. If her column endorsed Cynthia McKinney, I'd take her much more seriously—OF COURSE SHE WOULDN'T BE GETTING MEDIA ATTENTION IF THAT WERE THE CASE.
Now that Dr. Long is getting all that press - perhaps she will name some names.
Note that I did write "if true." (
Despite what that dog commented, I don't buy absolutely everything I get in my email box or I'd be wiring money to Kenya right now. However, having poked about the internet on Dr. Long, I suspect there may be something to her tale as it did get published in the Baltimore Sun...
Last I checked you newspaper types did fact check what you publish, yes?
Would the Sun have done that without any verification at all?
My precise process:
The email I got had a direct link to her blog and I just figured it was a run of the mill blog posting for her.
I googled Dr. Long and found the WaPo article, but that initial search did not turn up the Sun.
After KelleyLark tipped me to President Clinton's reference, I got curious and searched more.
"Tonight I call on the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower that will wilt at any moment," said Brown. "This woman is from Alaska for crying out loud. She is strong. She is tough. She is confident. And you claim she is ready to be one heart beat away form the presidency. If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff. Allow her to face down those pesky reporters... Let her have a real news conference with real questions. By treating Sarah Palin different from the other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves. Free Sarah Palin. Free her from the chauvinistic chain you are binding her with. Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do. So let her act like one."
On another note, McCain has been in Washington 26 years. That means that more people on his staff have seniority in pay. Pay is made in grades and in steps. Longevity often trumps the pay of a newer worker. For instance, when I was working at the Securities & Exchange Commission I worked in an office that had some folks on staff who had been in the office more than ten years and I had been hired two years before. Even though I was superior in grade, two of them made more money because of longevity and the number of pay steps in their lower grade. That is what is at work in what you are describing in Obama's office. Obama hired Tom Daschle's former Chief of Staff. It was a prudent choice and had nothing to do with anything other than being dedicated to doing his best.
As you have experience of that sort, please read the article and let me know what you think.
Also, I went to law school with hill staffers and my impression was their pay was set by the Senator -- not by grades like you experienced at the SEC. Please let me know if this is incorrect as I have always been curious.
As far as fact checking goes... my local daily is by no means the Baltimore Sun, but newspapers are held much more accountable for their own staff than for outside opinions. Letters to the editor and guest columns are not likely held to the same fact checking standards as real news stories. It is also safe to assume that Dr. Long shopped around this letter to the editor/guest op-ed column. The fact that only one major market newspaper picked it up is telling (The Sun even has 11 sister papers all under the same ownership: The Tribune Company).
And I also think that Dr. Long's refusal to endorse McKinney tells us all we need to know about her motivations.
Unequal pay is a real problem today. But I am unconvinced that Obama is paying his Senate staff unequal pay for equal work without having a detailed understanding of the pay, gender, job description, and hours worked of each staff member. I DO agree that the data suggests Obama could do a better job hiring women into positions of authority in his Senate office, but the ratio isn't so far off that I could conclude that Obama treats women hires less favorably than men hires. It begs the question, but we can't make any clear conclusions.
She is right about our lack of gender parity in government and that other nations do much better in this regard. What she may not know is that those good statistics were purchased with gender quotas. Any kind of affirmative action has never been a conservative value, so I doubt she would support that.
The fact that she is choosing to jump on the bandwagon at this late date when the Republicans choose a woman VP candidate is suspect.
Work towards the goal of gender parity should not be a short-cut of installing a woman VP, especially when this particular candidate harbors anti-woman sentiments and records. Rather, we need to work across all scales of society to lift up all those underrepresented persons.
Biology is not destiny.
I'll also add two words: Margaret Thatcher.
And two more words: Condi Rice.
And I hope I never have to add the words "Sarah Palin."
But here's the thing: she states
"Since my country is far from gender neutral, right now for me gender trumps everything else."
Yes, this country is far from gender neutral. It's also far from race neutral, far from choice neutral, far from sex preference neutral, far from civil rights neutral, far from environment neutral, far from class neutral, etc. It's far from perfect. And if everyone allows their particular valid grievance to "trump everything" what is left?
I also take exception to Dr. Long's demand that Obama pledge to staff half of his cabinet positions with women, as if gender is the only relevant characteristic that matters. Wouldn't you be offended if a man had told you he'd support Hillary only if she pledged to have half her cabinet be male, because he was concerned that women couldn't POSSIBLY advocate for men's issues?
If I had supported Hillary Clinton (and believe me, I was on the fence), it would have been because she was a good candidate, not because her womanhood made her somehow more able to understand me. Trust me - we're nothing alike and she wouldn't get me at all as a person. That's fine. I just want a particular economic and foreign policy from my candidate.
Why is it an injustice? How could one possibly make that determination without looking at all the many relevant factors -- experience, previous pay history, job responsibilities, performance, etc.
Let's say you and I are both offered jobs in the same company doing identical jobs. Let's further say that we both have identical experience and pay history. I'm am offered $40K to start; I accept the offer. You are offered $40K to start; you reply that you want $42K. Your offer is accepted. Poof! Unequal pay. So what? You negotiated; I didn't. Too bad for me.
The mere fact of unequal pay is in itself evidence neither of discrimination nor of injustice.
LT Bohica: "It is incomprehensible to me that Obama cannot find ten qualified women for his cabinet. Isn't it time for the Democratic Party to do more for women than kick them in the teeth?"
Well, Long seems to have done Ok. She has a Ph.D. She has taught at various universities. She has published a number of books. My guess is that she probably has a pretty good bank account. If that's getting kicked in the teeth, I wish the Democrats had given me a few kicks too. Is there way I can sign up for that?
I'll repeat what I wrote to him: It is akin to telling a domestic abuse victim who shows up at the emergency room with a broken arm to go home and be grateful her legs aren't broken.
Feel free to tell me one thing the Democratic Party has done for women (or men or anyone) lately? They've rubber stamped Bu$h policies since the beginning and will likely do the same on the bailout bill.
Regarding the staff pay inequity, I don't think you people can read.
I linked to the source article that analyzed the data. Let me just cut and paste again for you who are having such trouble:
The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729.
As noted, female staffers were paid less than men on average in Obama's office no matter which measure was used. Female staffers in McCain's office were paid more than men on average no matter which measure was used. Clinton provided an almost identical average pay to males and females paid over $23,000 per year, but paid proportionally more to males than females, when averages were calculated for her entire payroll.
I don't want a kick in the teeth like you do, but an extra 6k a year is something no one would turn down.
Is President Clinton wrong?
Watch what he said to the women on the View. My jaw dropped when I heard it initially. (The YouTube is at the end of the post)
Regarding pandering being wrong or bad... why is it that affirmative action for racial minorities is ok, but the thought of the same principle applied to corrects hundreds of years of political inequity for women is verboten?
I'd applaud Obama if he not only pledged gender equity in his appointments -- cabinet, judicial, administrative, etc. -- but I would actually stand up and clap if he promised the same to racial and sexual orientation minorities as well.
But then I am more liberal than even the so called liberals of the Democratic party -- which is why I am voting for McKinney.
To those who think voters will see through such promises -- get real. It has been about bread and circuses for thousands of years.
Edgar - do you seriously think the Sun would have published Dr. Long's piece without at least asking her for names?
I am a pretty cynical person, so I naturally wonder if there is something going on behind the scenes. Sure, it's possible that Long is so disgruntled that Clinton didn't win that she actually believes it is more important to defeat Obama than it is to score a victory for the issues that women care about. However, I'm intrigued by the amount of press this woman's choice is getting and the close collaboration between Long and the McCain camp. Could there be a quid pro quo involved?
The entire idea of gender parity is bizarre. It reduces women to their biologic functions and implies that their brains are controlled by their reproductive organs. Women have been fighting against this kind of essentialism for years. Why would any woman want to promote it?
But what I have found since is that she was a Hillary supporter. She says she has voted Dem for 24 years. She advocates a gender revolution to get women their seat at the table.
I thought she wrote well and had something to say and so I posted it. I'd be lying if I said I didn't expect to draw fire for putting it up, but I tire of nice nice posts on which everyone agrees.
Thank you for stopping by. Biology is definitely not destiny.
"I would be happy to vote for Senator Obama and rally other Hillary supporters to vote for Obama but in return I wanted Obama to pledge gender parity in the cabinet."
After the difficult primary process I don't think Obama's considerable ego could have stomached granting that request. And she knew that. Which is why I think she is playing politics and engaging in self-aggrandizement. Obama's refusal was more of the same. In fairness to Obama though, he has probably reached out to several people re: potential Cabintet appointments and may not have wanted to pour cold water on all of those relationships to appease Hillary and her supporters. Or maybe he didn't want to kowtow to Long, who knows?
The faith I had in McCain self-destructed when he chose Palin. If a self-professed "life-long Democrat" lines up behing that Punch and Judy show.... I don't even have words...
Regarding if quotas are bad or good for women, they seem to work in Scandinavian countries and I seem to recall we mandated a certain percentage of female elected reps in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Goose/gander?
"Regarding if quotas are bad or good for women"
They're not necessary. That's one of the main claims of feminism. Women don't need extra help. They just want to be judged on their own merits and not held back by prejudice against them.
I doubt that McCain made political promises to Long. How would he benefit from making secret promises to an intermediary when public promises to all women would get him much more favorable publicity? I am wondering about personal promises to Long herself.
Doctor, I think McCain might have actually agreed to more female appointments for the same reason he picked Palin. He saw what happened to Clinton and is looking to cash in on the anger of women like Dr. Long. As far as what Dr. Long expects... perhaps ambassador to Denmark? Maybe a position in the Department of Health and Human Services? Who can say. Devious of you to have thought of personal reward.
With the quota thing, I ask again - why did we mandate them in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Also -- just because I can't help it, what do you think of Ph.d. types who use the title Dr?
There's a big difference between affirmative action and outright quotas. The latter actually held as being unconstitutional for federally funded institutions. I doubt that legally applies to presidential appointees, but I don't think the former constitutional professor is going to adopt quotas that would be illegal in other settings. Plus, as I wrote before, it'd be politically stupid.
You can have affirmative action without quotas.
"If McCain made a promise to make his Cabinet half women, I'd eat my shorts. I can't see that happening."
I would NOT be surprised if McCain actually makes half his Cabinet women. In fact, I rather expect that there would be close gender parity in a McCain Cabinet. I believe the same about an Obama Cabinet. But I doubt if either one would promise that result from the outset.
If McCain, before the election, expressly promises gender parity in his Cabinet, I'll eat my shorts.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the loaded term "quota."
I just remain convinced that Obama is blowing it with women like Dr. Long due to his unwillingness to pander. KHB mentioned ego as a possible problem, but I wonder if he is just that tone deaf?
I believe there are 15 members of the Cabinet. I'll eat my shorts (OK, I'll let that go soon) if either Obama/McCain select less than 6 women. My guess is that there will be at least 6 women (40%), but more likely 7 or 8 in either administration's Cabinet. It's going to happen that way, but neither candidate will tell us that's because they set out to have gender parity.
How exactly has Dr. Long suffered? I'd like to know. She claims she's a "second class citizen." If so, where can I sign up? If that's the result of second class citizenship, I must be in the cargo hold.
LT Bohica: "Regarding the staff pay inequity, I don't think you people can read."
Ever since I done got me book learnin' I can read. Cipher too. And having spent the the last two decades analyzing medical, financial, and demographic data I can tell you that the numbers you cite are uesless -- literally useless.
Since you are so good at getting and reading information, perhaps you can do a little more:
1) what exactly do all of these people do on McCain's and Obama's staff, and what is the market rate for people in those positions?
2) what are their backgrounds -- education and experience?
3) what are their salary histories?
4) to what extent did they negotiate their own salaries?
5) how are salary ranges computed in each campaign?
6) what was the hiring process in each campaign?
And finally, what is the specific remedy that Obama should implement? How does he make the situation "right?" And for future reference, how does he make sure that his salaries aren't "unequal?" Maybe futz around with positions and pay ranges and personnel to make sure that, no matter what, the God of Equality is satisfied?
Are you denying there is a pay gap for women or that sexism exists in our society? Or is it only educated, reasonably well off women who should just put up with gendered bullshit because they have an education and money? You're beginning to sound rather classist. Do you secretly resent women who are more successful than you? Do you see sexism as karmic retribution on them for their success?
Regarding Obama not paying the women on his Senate staff fairly -- I just love it when folks come here to my blog and tell me to go do their research for them. It really makes me laugh at the chutzpah.
Buzz off.
I am not your intern to task.
I provided you with a link to an article that crunched the numbers made available by the Senate. They crunched them several ways. They even made a pretty chart out of them.
It is nice that you don't like their lies, lies and damn statistics, but as the article states -- the numbers were run past each senator's office and all three responded that they were correct.
I don't exist to run about the internet and find information for you. Especially on an ancillary issue that only came up in a comment thread. Like I imagine you do, I hang out here because it amuses me.
If you seriously want me to do research for you, then you'll have to pay me. However -- my hourly is steep and after all the crying you've been doing about Dr. Long being too well off to bitch in comparison to your sad economic lot in life, you've left me with severe doubts that you can afford me.
There -- was I classist enough in return for you?
Go do your own damn research and prove the good folks who compiled the numbers on McCain, Clinton and Obama wrong, Spider. I am not your fly.
Oh -- and as a hard atheist, I firmly state there is no god.
I think he is essentially concerned with what is politically expedient, and is wrapping up this concern in pretty words about respecting people's choices.
But that is still different from advocating irrational voting, as Long does. Politics is about choices made in government, about the exercise of power. If you make it into a game of symbols, you're like those strange people in Northern Ireland who really believe the essential issue is whether a parade can go down a particular street.
If Long's article were merely an explanation of the reasons why she is making a particular personal choice, that would be fair. But she is campaigning here, and justifying her decision to campaign for McCain ticket for reasons that I cannot respect. She is encouraging a mode of voter choice that corrupts the polity.
I'm a woman and most of that negative stuff simply does not belong in my bio. Given Long's argument about the critical nature of gender, I think my own gender is important to the discussion. How does Long address the issue that many, many women have supported Barack Obama from the beginning. Are we all misguided fools? I wonder if the personal history, then, isn't part of this. I wonder if those who've suffered more from sexism aren't more likely to support the woman candidate simply because she's a woman? Or at least more likely to have supported Hillary over Barack? It's interesting to me. I don't have any answers, but I think that may explain the difference to some degree. And neither is really right or wrong, do you agree?
One thing that is almost never addressed regarding feminism is the power of motherhood--that whole idea of transmitting values to offspring. It's rarely discussed. But I am someone who believes almost everything humans do is for evolutionary purposes, so I find women's lives extremely powerful when it comes to shaping the next generation. Much of it comes without pay, and I am certainly not suggesting we all give up the good fight for equal pay, etc.! Just that there are sources of power beyond money, and time with and influence on offspring are two of them.
Thanks for this scintillating post.
I take your point on President Clinton being expedient, but am not sure I buy that Dr. Long is behaving irrationally. Her inclination to vote her gender is perfectly rational when you consider how few chances Dr. Long has had to do so.
Yes, the argument has been made (over and over again) that "saving" Roe or some other issue the Democrats dangle in front of women like her is rational reason to not vote for McCain. That feminist women considering a vote for McCain are crazy. never mind that crazy is such a loaded word in feminist circles.
But as President Clinton said, people vote against their (economic) interests all the time. He mentioned identifying with the candidate as one reason to do so. Perhaps Dr. Long trusts McCain more than Obama. McCain did after all meet with her and appear to listen to what she had to say -- where as she perceives Obama as ignoring her concerns.
Hard to say. But having read even more of Dr. Long's writing today, I think she is making a rational decision based on her values and beliefs.
I also checked out the comments to her article at the Baltimore Sun. I read ten or twelve pages to sample the over three hundred posted and found more commenters agreed with her than not. It is anecdotal and proves nothing, but I certainly did not expect so many to support her.
You raise an interesting point about women who have faced sexism vs those who have not been impacted or do not realize yet how they have been impacted. I agree that there is no way of knowing for sure how that shakes out. If you just want my opinion based on nothing but gut -- then yes, I think you are probably right.
I always fall back on my mom as an example of an older white middle class lady who came through first wave feminism. Mom put up with a lot of shit in her life from men. Despite having spent a decade in the "we hate Hillary" club, as soon as Mom saw the nightly sexism parade -- she tore up her card and even started contributing to Clinton's campaign. Those primary attacks reminded her of incidents she had dealt with in her professional and personal past.
Now she loathes Obama for many of the same reason's Dr. Long wrote in her article and as I said before, would vote for a skunk before him.
I'll repeat what I wrote to him: It is akin to telling a domestic abuse victim who shows up at the emergency room with a broken arm to go home and be grateful her legs aren't broken."
I don't think that is a good analogy. Women who could realistically be considered candidates for a Cabinet position are not exactly beaten down.
It is more akin to telling someone with 2 million dollars in the bank to stop complaining that they don't have 2.1 million dollars in the bank. I simply think that if the pampered elite are concerned about injustice then they should look further afield than their own careers for ways to act on their concern.
I did watch the Clinton interview you posted. He's good. However, I only semi-agree with his idea that "you can't tell someone else that the ground on which they make their voting decision is irrational." I *do* agree you can't *tell* someone that, because it's bad manners. But it is clearly true that for some people, "the ground on which they make their voting decision" is indeed irrational. Voting for McCain because you believe Vice President Palin will be good for women may not be irrational but it's certainly on the road!
secretary madeline albright after all, who according to dr. long is a woman who is supposed to understand the miracle of baby making and babies, told an interviewer in 1996 that the deaths of 500,000 iraqi children caused by US policies was "worth it."
is clarence thomas an advocate for blacks? is condi an advocate for women, after all?
Also using an "average" is about the worst stat you can come up with. Since the charts are gone can you at least tell us what the median salary for men and women was? You need all the info before you start using statistics to prove an argument.
Also am I reading you right, you actually think McCain promised a total non entity a political appointment and lots of female cabinet members for her endorsement?
There is a pay gap and there is sexism. The causes of the pay gap are complex and cannot be reduced to simple sexism.
LT: "Or is it only educated, reasonably well off women who should just put up with gendered bullshit because they have an education and money? You're beginning to sound rather classist. Do you secretly resent women who are more successful than you?"
I don't care if a woman is more successful than I am. (Frankly, that's not hard to do.) I just have a hard time listening to someone who is highly successful laying down the "life is so hard" rap. Yeah, life is hard. There's a lot of that going around, and it's hard for all sorts of people, men too. I'm not anti-woman; I'm pro-people, regardless of gender.
LT: "I just love it when folks come here to my blog and tell me to go do their research for them. It really makes me laugh at the chutzpah."
Well, you're the one who thinks he has an argument. But no problem, I did some research for you. Here's the detailed list of salaries for Obama's staff. Check it out. If you find a smoking gun let us know, if it's not too much trouble.
Obama: Pay Equity For Thee, But Not For Me
by Deroy Murdock (more by this author)
Posted 09/12/2008 ET
"Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work," Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said August 28 in his convention acceptance speech. He told the crowd in Denver: "I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons."
Obama's campaign website is even more specific. Under the heading "Fighting for Pay Equity," the women's issues page laments that, "Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men at Fortune 500 corporate offices. Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act…"
Obama's commitment to federally mandated pay equity stretches from the Rockies to Wall Street and beyond. And yet it seems to have eluded his United States Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make.
A watchdog group called LegiStorm posts online the salaries for Capitol Hill staffers. "We have no political affiliations and no political purpose except to make the workings of Congress as transparent as possible," its website explains. Parsing LegiStorm's official data, gleaned from the Secretary of the Senate, offers a fascinating glimpse at pay equity in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body.
The most recent statistics are for the half-year from October 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008. Excluding interns focuses attention on full-time personnel. For someone who worked only until, say, last February 29, extrapolating up to six months' service simplifies this analysis. Doubling these half-year figures illustrates how a year's worth of Senate employees' paychecks should look.
Based on these calculations, Obama's 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama's average male employee earned $54,397.
Obama's 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.
Why this disparity? One reason may be the underrepresentation of women in Obama's highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama's five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.
Again, on average, Obama's female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama's campaign website condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1.00. In spite of this 17-cent gap between Obama's rhetoric and reality, he chose to chide GOP presidential contender John McCain on this issue.
Obama responded August 31 to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's Republican vice-presidential nomination. Palin "seems like a very engaging person," Obama told voters in Toledo, Ohio. "But I've got to say, she's opposed — like John McCain is — to equal pay for equal work. That doesn't make much sense to me."
Obama's criticism notwithstanding, McCain's payment patterns are the stuff of feminist dreams.
McCain's 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.
On average, according to these data, women in John McCain's office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart — while adding $10,726 to her annual income — by leaving Barack Obama's office and going to work for John McCain.
How could this be?
One explanation could be that women compose a majority of McCain's highest-paid aides. Among his top-five best-compensated staffers, three are women. Of his 20-highest-salaried employees, 13 are women. The Republican presidential nominee relies on women — much more than men — for advice at the highest, and thus, best-paid levels.
If anyone on McCain's Senate staff is unhappy, McCain's male staffers might complain that they seem to get a slightly raw deal.
In short, these statistics suggest that John McCain is more than fair with his female employees, while Barack Obama — at the expense of the women who work for him — quietly perpetuates the very same pay-equity divide that he loudly denounces. Of all people, the Democratic standard bearer should understand that equal pay begins at home.
Mr. Murdock, a New York-based commentator to HUMAN EVENTS, is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
You can find the original post here: Obama: Pay Equity For Thee, But Not For Me
Now on to the class issue. I realize it may seem strange to argue for women who have all that privilege. But if you don't let the broken arm comparison, I'll try something new.
I readily concede Dr. Long is probably one of the elite. Hell, I am as well. But why should female elite put up with sexist crap that male elite don't? Why should male elite earn a cool million while the female elite peer only takes home 770k?
I realize that 770k is astronomical compared to what normal folks earn in ten years even, but why should female elite not get justice and equal treatment?
I think an argument can be made that getting equity for elite women might help get equity for less elite women. But perhaps not.
Ultimately, discriminating against any woman -- no matter what her class -- due to her gender is wrong.
About what I think McCain "promised." I am not psychic and I do not think he pledged to Dr. Long his solemn word and blood oath to be equitable in his appointments just because Dr. Long asked him pretty please. I don't think Dr. Long has that kind of pull. I just heard of the lady yesterday.
However, I can imagine him telling her he had planned on being equitable anyway and so he had no problem with her wanting a cabinet full of women.
He came out a few days ago and publicly declared he'd put Democrats in his cabinet. If he'll let dirty ol' dems in then I guess he'd let in skunks and ladies as well.
Of course this is all speculation with no basis in fact. It just seems like Dr. Long implies she got the assurances she wanted from McCain in her article. I'll read a little more of Dr. Long's blog and see what turns up -- but to be honest, this post bored me hours ago. I have an incredibly short attention span.
Thanks for stopping through -- I like what you are posting over at your page about your experiences as a case worker for loans or whatever the euphemism was.
AA -- I totally understand why you think it is absurd for elites to quibble about sexist treatment, but female elites don't think it is absurd.
Your point about helping humanity is a good one. I have been lucky to travel a good deal and I have seen what real poverty looks like up close. To assuage my rich american guilt, I donate a healthy bit of my privilege to build schools in Central Asia, support women in Afghanistan while they get training for self support, feed the hungry in my area of Texas, provide wind power to isolated communities in Central and South America, buy Play pumps for water in Africa, Mosquito nets to prevent malaria, solar powered reading lights for school kids in Nepal, and provide micro-finance loans all over the world -- just as for examples. (Yes, I have lots of guilt for being born in the richest country on earth) I guess like most people I could do more, but I don't see the logic in not fighting sexism at all levels of society. Elite women shouldn't be discriminated against due to their gender.
And with that I quit my own post. Things to do. Places to go.
I'm surprised ya'll kept coming back considering what a raging asshole I am.
Also -- when I wrote two comments above that this post bored me hours ago -- I meant my post. My Blog. My words.
Not all the your comments which have not been boring. They've delivered up some new concepts. I'm always looking to shift a paradigm. I am also interested in seeing what comes of the Obama office pay stats. It seems more folks are onto it now than that conservative news organization.
While the Murdoch piece you quote is factual, it's generally not a strong argument to quote someone who writes for Human Events.
I'll again say that looking at the individual staff members AND that article, it's hard to say Obama pays women less than men by thousands of dollars for equal work. One CAN say that Obama could do a better job hiring women for the top positions in his Senate office.
Sure, you're correct. It's just that I don't lose a lot of sleep over that. But let me give you another situation (that you probably remember).
Sheri Klouda was hired as a professor of Hebrew at a Southern Baptist university. After hiring her - and after she moved her family there and bought a home -- the university president decided that it was not appropriate to have a woman teaching men. She was denied tenure and eventually forced to leave the university. Here's a link:
Not to minimize the difficulties of women in more elite positions, I suggest that THIS is the kind of overt discrimination over which people really should go to the barricades. This is not a quibble over average salary or glass ceilings, but an attack on this woman's ability to work, have a career, and put food on the table, especially since her husband is disabled and cannot work. This story is about a year old, but it would have made for a hell of an OS post.
Skeptic Turtle writes: "One CAN say that Obama could do a better job hiring women for the top positions in his Senate office."
Yeah, after looking at the details that's pretty much what I came away with too.
Who cares? Obama's not sexist. This is ludicrous. Look if you have ten positions open at a company and you need to fill those positions with the top people, then fucking fill them with the top people. Period. If they better qualified candidates all happen to be women then hire them. If they all happen to be black? Hire them. If they all happen to be white men, then hire them all, too.
If you vote for a woman because she's a woman, regardless of her qualifications, not only are you sexist, you're an idiot. And the reverse is true, as well.
If Hilary supporters vote for Palin simply because she has a vagina then they will get what they deserve: An unqualified Vice President who can't seem to answer the most rudimentary questions and is clearly not very well informed about much of anything at all.
LT said it best, "To vote for McCain/Palin merely because of chromosome count will make a mockery of the notion of any real equality, and will risk setting freedoms back dozens of years, possibly compromising the health and safety of many women. "
I mean, c'mon, did you see her on Katie Couric last night? It was laughable.
Plain and really quite simple.
It didn't sound very "post-racial" to me. Actually, it sounded flagrantly racist. While I respect Palin for her choices and her ability to rise in an industry overrun by men, I would rather vote on candidates based on platform than something like gender or race.
And by platform I am speaking about more than just abortion issues. Voting for a candidate based on a single issue is no different than voting for them because of their gender or race.
But this isn't necessarily what Dr. Long is saying, as you will note in the quote below:
"I foolishly thought equal representation in government was a reasonable request. "What if there aren't qualified women you still expect us to appoint half women to the cabinet?" he replied. I was confused. "There are 300 million people in this country; you're telling me you can't find ten qualified women?" He responded, "You can't have that." We had no further conversations. There was nothing more to say."
Yes, her choice to vote for Palin seems a bit misguided, but can you take a moment to see why an educated, thinking woman is making this choice? This is how serious an issue gender is and you're actually doing what most people (men especially) do regularly, you are down playing it's importance, which is doing far more harm than good.
Read the article for for the key points regarding gender and not as a vote for Palin. Really pay attention to the strength and validity of her comments.
"Feminism for most of us is about much more than gender parity. I am sure there are 10 qualified women for the Cabinet, but to appoint them just because they are women seems to undermine the whole cause and set us back lightyears."
If they are qualified and they are women, then why shouldn't they be put into those positions? Especially given that there are already plenty of men there...http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html
Affirmative Action isn't about 'reverse discrimination', it is about giving specific groups of people a chances, who are qualified, who would not have otherwise even been considered.


text:
Ron Paul Attacks Bernanke on Gold
NEW YORK ( TheStreet ) -- Congressman Ron Paul's commitment to the gold standard was on display today as he challenged Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on whether the precious metal is considered a form of currency.
During his testimony to the House Financial Services Committee, Bernanke was hardly allowed to speak as Paul grilled the head of the Fed.
Paul: The price of gold today is $1,580 the dollar during these last few years the dollar was devalued almost 50%. When you wake up in the morning, do you care about the price of gold?
Bernanke: Well, I pay attention to the price of gold but I think it reflects a lot of things. It reflects global uncertainties. The reason people hold gold is its protection against what we call tail risk ... they have gold as a protection.
Paul: Do you think gold is money? Bernanke:Paul has denounced the Federal Reserve for his entire 35 year tenure in Congress and has been the gold standard's biggest advocate, something he danced around with Bernanke. Getting the Fed chairman to admit that gold was a form of money would underscore Paul's belief that gold is a more valuable form of money than paper currencies. Since the Fed started pumping money into the system in November of 2008, gold prices have climbed 113% while the U.S. dollar index has sunk 13%. Gold hit an intra-day record Wednesday of $1,588.90 an ounce.
Many experts think that high gold prices are actually a reflection on the lack of faith in the U.S. dollar. With real interest rates negative -- interest rate minus the inflation rate -- gold has made an attractive alternative to paper money. The real interest in the U.S., at the top end, is negative 1.05% which means that each dollar is worth around 90 cents whereas each ounce of gold is worth more than $1,580. In a recent interview with TheStreet, Paul said, "At one time the ratio of dollars to gold was $20 to 1 ounce, now it's over $1,500. They'll lose control, people will panic out of the dollar, then you'll see gold at maybe $5,000 to $10,000 ... But now we're losing the trust and we're only waiting on that day, so when that happens there will be a restoration of sound money to some degree." Paul thinks that Washington will come to its senses before gold hits $10,000 an ounce and crack its fiscal whip, "we're going to quit spending, quit printing money and then restore confidence, but it's up for grabs because the bubble is bigger than ever before." Paul advocates returning to the Constitutional mandate of using gold and silver as legal tender and then letting the people chose which they would rather trade in gold or paper. "I want to legalize the trading in gold and silver, no taxes, no sales taxes, no capital gains taxes. " Paul hopes if given this option that individuals would opt for gold and silver, making the U.S. dollar more obsolete. "Gold, if you pick up a coin minted 6,000 years ago, you'd still have your money. If you pick up a piece of paper printed a year ago, it might be worth half its value. So history is on my side of the argument," says Paul. If a true gold standard were to go into effect, meaning that every dollar was replaced with gold, then the gold price would have to skyrocket to $5,000 or the government would have to extract $9 trillion out of the system. Paul concedes that might happen but that it would be worth the pain. Jon Nadler, senior analyst at Kitco.com says that Bernanke will be crucified by Paul and his followers for not saying gold is money but that Bernanke was not wrong. "We all know the date and the time when gold stopped being money. This is all about perception, sentimentalism, and reality being at odds with each other ... Anyone who acknowledges that inescapable reality will promptly be dismissed by the gold bugs as a heretic." With Paul announcing that he will no longer seek re-election to Congress but is instead putting all his eggs in the Presidential basket, he is no doubt hoping other people see his side of the gold coin. -- Written by Alix Steel in New York.
>To contact the writer of this article, click here: Alix Steel. >To follow the writer on Twitter, go to http://twitter.com/adsteel.
Check Out Our Best Services for Investors
Action Alerts PLUS
Portfolio Manager Jim Cramer and Director of Research Jack Mohr reveal their investment tactics while giving advanced notice before every trade.
Product Features:
- $2.5+ million portfolio
- Large-cap and dividend focus
- Intraday trade alerts from Cramer
Quant Ratings
Access the tool that DOMINATES the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500.
Product Features:
- Buy, hold, or sell recommendations for over 4,300 stocks
- Unlimited research reports on your favorite stocks
- A custom stock screener
Stocks Under $10
David Peltier uncovers low dollar stocks with serious upside potential that are flying under Wall Street's radar.
Product Features:
- Model portfolio
- Stocks trading below $10
- Intraday trade alerts
Check Out Our Best Services for Investors
Dividend Stock Advisor
David Peltier identifies the best of breed dividend stocks that will pay a reliable AND significant income stream.
Product Features:
- Diversified model portfolio of dividend stocks
- Updates with exact steps to take - BUY, HOLD, SELL
Trifecta Stocks
Every recommendation goes through 3 layers of intense scrutinyquantitative, fundamental and technical analysisto maximize profit potential and minimize risk.
Product Features:
- Model Portfolio
- Intra Day Trade alerts
- Access to Quant Ratings
Options Profits
Our options trading pros provide over 100 monthly option trading ideas and strategies to help you become a well-seasoned trader.
Product Features:
- Actionable options commentary and news
- Real-time trading community


text:
Bill Howell takes a look at West Brom's Premier League thirty-somethings
Ninth tier of English football beckons for former WBA star
As former Baggies skipper contemplates hanging up his boots, we look back in celebration of a modern-day favourite
We list all 68 of Villa's Premier League record scorer's top flight strikes, including his top five
Reaction and pictures: Curtis Davies reflects on Birmingham City's win at Barnsley and the rest of the festive fixtures for Blues
'SACKED in the morning, you're getting sacked in the morning', sang the Albion fans to the sad figure stood beside the QPR bench.
AARON Mclean scored the only goal at the City Ground to propel Hull into the npower Championship play-off places and ruin Steve Cotterill's 100 per cent record as Nottingham Forest manager.
STEVE McClaren's return to English club management turned out to be a low-key affair as his Nottingham Forest side were held to a goalless draw by Barnsley at the City Ground.
Brede Hangeland added to Birmingham's relegation worries by giving Fulham a first-half lead in the Barclays Premier League clash at St Andrew's.
IT LOOKED from afar as if Albion's players had chosen the wrong type of stud on this lush green grass for their flip-flops.
VILLA v STOKE
SCOTT Carson has received a glowing endorsement from manager Roberto Di Matteo.
NIGEL Reo-Coker limped away from Fulham on crutches last night – as Aston Villa's injury jinx claimed a SIXTH first teamer.
Fulham centre-half Brede Hangeland earned Fulham a point with a last-gasp equaliser at Craven Cottage.
ALBION stormed into fourth spot for the first time in three decades with a comfortable victory over Fulham.
CHRIS Brunt looked ahead to tomorrow's visit of Fulham by insisting that he was happy for Albion to stay 'under the radar' of the Big Four-obsessed pundits.
CHRIS Brunt looked ahead to Saturday's visit of Fulham by insisting he was happy for Albion to stay 'under the radar' of the Big Four-obsessed pundits.
ROBERTO Di Matteo claims West Brom's perseverance has been critical to their early-season form.
Chris Lepkowski takes a look ahead to the Fulham match as Jonathan Greening and Zoltan Gera retunr to the Hawthorns.
JONATHAN Greening has promised to show restraint if he scores against Albion on Saturday.
RELEGATION, relegation, survival, relegation...what next?
ROBERTO Di Matteo insists there is no bad feeling between him and Paul Robinson – despite the player demanding a move on the Albion manager's first day in office.
The Birmingham Mail guide to summer transfer activity in the Premier League
ROBERTO Di Matteo believes Scott Carson's growing influence – both on, and off, the pitch – helped him secure the armband for this season
SO where to start with West Brom's chances of survival?
Scott Carson is to continue as West Brom skipper for their first season back in the Barclays Premier League.
SCOTT Carson will continue as West Brom captain this season - giving an insight into how the role had helped him mature on and off the pitch.
Is there something happening in your area you would like us to report on?
Tell us about it and, if possible, send us a picture
We reach over 2,871,244* unique users a month with dedicated coverage of Birmingham and the West Midlands.
Over 66% of our visitors, who view over 4m* page impressions every month, are in the desirable ABC1 socio-economic groups.
To book an advert with the Birmingham Mail team call 0121 234 5000, email email@example.com or visit the Trinity Mirror Midlands website for more information.
The Birmingham Mail is part of Trinity Mirror Midlands, offering you unique access to our audience across the region online and in print.
*Source: Omniture (UK 6 month average August '14 - January '15)
Editor, Birmingham MailEditor-in-Chief, Trinity Mirror Midlands
A born and bred Brummie, David was appointed editor of the Birmingham Mail in November 2009.
He has over 30 years experience as a journalist in the West Midlands including editorships on the Coventry Telegraph and Sunday Mercury.


text:
Casino mogul Adelson pressures Spain to bend rules for EuroVegas
American casino mogul Sheldon Adelson's EuroVegas project could bring Spain much-needed investment, but the deal comes with demands for unappealing legal and financial exemptions.
Emilio Morenatti/AP
American casino mogul Sheldon Adelson has a "vision" of bringing a massive Vegas-style casino complex to Spain and is tempting officials with billions in investment and tens of thousands of jobs that are sorely needed.
But Mr. Adelson's proposal comes with big demands, which reportedly include fiscal breaks and substantive reforms to Spanish laws, and have already prompted a backlash that could upend the project altogether. His proposal is triggering a broader debate in Spain about just how far the country should be willing to go to exit its worst recession in decades. Spain's final decision on the proposal isn't expected until this summer.
The proposed project would involve building 12 hotels, six casinos, a concert hall, several theaters, and golf courses on about three square miles over the next decade. Ron Reese, vice president of public relations for Adelson's Las Vegas Sands Corp., told officials and Spanish media during a tour last month that some 17 billion euros would be invested and around 260,000 jobs would be created.
Adelson's company hasn't made its case publicly and the aura of secrecy is raising even more suspicions. The company did not answer multiple requests for comment.
Analysts, politicians, and economists in Spain have suggested that the economic benefits are not realistic. With several casinos in three different cities, Adelson's company only hired 36,000 people, they say. And besides, the rate of employees per hotel room – a common unit of measurement for Spain's tourism industry – for Adelson's proposal is much smaller than that of Spain's overall average.
Page 1 of 4


text:
Join our network of non-profits, companies and individuals who believe social change can happen through design.
Become A MemberPopular Blogs
- winema gaven
1 Votes / 1 Posts - LogicGateOne Corp
0 Votes / 4 Posts - jeff clayborn
0 Votes / 2 Posts - Monty Kennar
0 Votes / 2 Posts
Most Active Members
- Kate Andrews
321 Recent Posts - v-neeta
305 Recent Posts - steven landau
157 Recent Posts - Douglas Best
126 Recent Posts
Recent Work Samples
- vasilis capellas
Designer - Vina Domingo-Roy
Designer (Product Design) - fert det
Designer (Journalism) - HeatherRose Studios
Designer (Illustration)
Francine Trotter
United States
Member since February 16, 2012
Meet Urgent Demands by way of Small Expression Funds Financial loan
You do not involve larger total of mortgage for little payments to be produced for every day charges and as a result typical massive loans concerning collateral like home are of no use. Brief phrase money loan occur useful in these kinds of necessities. You can shell out for each day expenses like clearing education or health care costs, celebrating an occasion, heading to a holiday trip by way of availing brief term income bank loan.
Generally salary earning individuals take Limited Expression Money Bank loan as they will need to meet up with urgent costs ahead of up coming pay out day. It is incredibly uncomplicated for them to consider brief phrase mortgage. All they have to do is to give proof of their work which generally low cost payday loan satisfies the loan companies. On the other hand, if the financial institution even now calls for securing the mortgage volume, he can consult for a submit dated cheque of the loan volume which includes interest from the borrower. On the because of date, the loan company deposits the cheque in the borrower's lender and will get back again the mortgage.
A single appealing function of quick time period income mortgage is its instant approval. Generally the bank loan is transferred in the borrower's account within few hrs. This allows borrowers to immediately meet up with bills. A quite smaller total of commonly up to ?1000 is built obtainable below the financial loan. The repayment period of time also is shorter for two-3 weeks until the borrower gets his up coming pay out cheque.
There is a slight disadvantage connected cash advance loans in georgia to shot time period cash financial loan that it comes at really higher curiosity price. This is because the loan companies have to cover the chance involved in the bank loan and lending cost. Higher curiosity rate even so is not of massive problem to the salary earning class as their priority is to avail the mortgage for meeting instant requirements.
What is more brief time period dollars bank loan is presented with an ease to undesirable credit men and women. Loan companies do not glance into undesirable credit background because the sum involved in the loan is really small which is not tough to return back and also mainly because loan companies by now take submit dated cheque from borrower. Also, the borrowers' work position is checked by the lender.
over the phone payday loans Research properly for the correct financial institution who provides small time period income loan at comparatively decrease fascination charge. The mortgage seeker also should appear for the support furnished like the time the financial institution will take in approving the financial loan even though building the financial loan offer. A single gets many mortgage presents when the loan is utilized on the web and thus phrases and circumstances of various loan providers ought to be studied before settling for a financial institution.
Short time period income bank loan is an productive instrument of availing finance when necessary immediately. Nevertheless the mortgage comes at very large interest charge but it must not discourage from bank loan availing as principal aim is instantaneous finance. Apparent the loan at due date to keep away from further more significant amount of interest.
My Interests
- Industrial Design
- Environmental Design
- Communication Design
- Fashion Design
- Audio/Visual Design


text:
... essing, is usually all that is needed. If your cut or scrape is bleeding heavily, or is on a particularly delicate area of your ... » Read on What it is used for
... used to replace blood lost during surgery, or in cases of heavy bleeding inside the body (hemorrhage).
... » Read on


text:
It can also allow political opponents to work, as Mr. Simpson and former Democratic White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles were able to do in devising a compromise deficit-reduction plan in 2010.
President Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill used humor as a softening agent. They would fight over issues during the day but often get together in the evening and tell each other Irish jokes. Their humor made sure they could disagree without being disagreeable. They also got a lot done.
A Reagan speechwriter, Peter Robinson, later wrote: "Reagan taught me to appreciate the uses of humor.... But he also taught me to appreciate the meaning of humor. The world contains more good than bad, more courage than cowardice, and more reasons for smiles than for tears. Laughter is a profession of faith."
Good humor is also a form of affection, a graceful admission that the somethings need not divide us.
Abraham Lincoln often used self-deprecatory remarks to get the country through hard times. An opponent once told Lincoln that he was being two-faced, to which he responded: "If I had two faces do you think I'd be wearing this thing?"
A journalist of the time, Henry Villard, remarked, "It would be hard to find one who tells better jokes, enjoys them better and laughs oftener than Abraham Lincoln."
These days, if politicians in Washington are funny at all, it can be heard at the annual political roasts hosted by journalists, the Gridiron Dinner and the White House Correspondents Dinner. But those affairs are mostly private.