Monthly Archives: January 2018

In Which the New York Times and the BBC Miss Again

Posted on by
Reply

It seems the women journalists in the pay of the BBC were being paid significantly less than their male colleagues, to the point that Carrie Gracie, BBC’s China Editor, resigned her position in protest (I’m citing a New York Times report about the BBC.  Why that’s important, rather than citing a BBC report directly, will come clear in a bit).  Gracie has returned to London, still a BBC journalist, but there she’ll be paid the same as her male colleagues.

And how did that equal pay come about, you might ask?

According to “the organization” (presumably a BBC mucky-muck or BBC mucky-muck’s spokesman),

The BBC has agreed to pay cuts with a number of leading BBC News presenters, and others have agreed in principle[.]

Jeremy Vine, one of the high-powered, and highly paid, journalists getting his pay cut, agreed with the move, and he did so in all seriousness.

I think it needs to be sorted out, and I support my female colleagues who have rightly said they should be paid the same when they’re doing the same job.  I think the BBC’s on it, and this story is part of it.

Wow.  Just wow.

If Gracie really is the doing substantially the same work as her colleagues, why shouldn’t she get a pay raise to get to substantially the same pay?  That’s how bad it is, folks.  This is the Left’s mindset.  It doesn’t even occur to them to raise the pay of the lower paid.  All they can think of is to cut the higher paid.

Hold back the successful.  Don’t push forward those behind.  Instead of a win-win outcome, the Left prefers the everybody loses outcome.

On second thought, the NYT, which was as silent on the pay cut/pay raise question as the BBC, and the BBC didn’t miss.  This is what progressives, the Liberal NLMSM, and the US’ Progressive-Democratic Party want.  Hold back the ones ahead, don’t help the ones behind catch up.

Living Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written that a fractious Republican Party, compared with a monolithic Democratic Party (now a Progressive-Democratic Party), demonstrates with that fractiousness that it lives democracy while that other party merely talks about it.

Are the Conservatives in Great Britain, with their own fractiousness, demonstrating that they live democracy, too, rather than merely talking about it?

Maybe.  But there are differences between the Republicans’ internal arguments and the Tories’ internal arguments.

The Republican Party’s fractiousness centers on arguments over policy, whether immigration, health care provision and health plan provision reform, tax reform, or….  The Tories, though, their fractiousness seems more centered on personality.

Chancellor Philip Hammond must go.  It’s not that Party members disagree with his policies and they want to debate in favor of different ones, he must be removed.  Prime Minister Theresa May must resign.  Not because Party members disagree with her policies and want to argue for the Party supporting others, she must resign.  Foreign Affairs Minister Boris Johnson must be removed.  Not because Party members disagree with his policies, he’s just a boor and must be removed; there’s nothing to debate here.

That’s not a recipe for democracy or for a party’s success.  The Wall Street Journal closed its piece (at the third link above) with this:

If Conservatives think defenestrating Mr Hammond will help, that’s their choice. But they shouldn’t expect any better from a successor—on Brexit or in elections—unless the party unites behind an economic growth plan.

Indeed.  A policy debate, instead of a personal argument.

Disparate Impact

Posted on by
Reply

High-tax States, principally States run by Progressive-Democrat regimes, don’t like the tax reform’s cap on State and local taxes.

The governors of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut said on Friday that they would sue the federal government to overturn the new US tax law, saying the measure unconstitutionally discriminates against Democratic-leaning states.

This is just the raw sewage of disparate impact being spread across a tax bill—never mind that the tax reform is uniformly applied across all States, across all businesses and individual taxpayers.  Never mind, too, that if some taxpayers, if some taxing jurisdictions, are impacted differently than others, it’s solely a result of the conscious individual, business, and State and local government choices.  At least when “disparate impact” is imputed to matters of race, the alleged victims have no choice in their position in the differences alleged.

Here’s an example of the foolishness and disingenuousness of the suit:

The legal action will argue that the new tax law’s cap on state and local tax deductions infringes on states’ rights and amounts to double taxation[.]

The States have no “right” to a Federal income tax deduction.  Beyond that, the cap can’t possibly represent double taxation; the only tax here is the SALT applied by those State and local jurisdictions.  Not being able to deduct a fraction of that (or any of it, come to that) from a Federal income tax bill is no tax at all.

One hopes the Federal trial judge dismisses the suit out of hand and strongly sanctions the governments and Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut for bringing such a frivolous suit.  Failing that, one hopes the Supreme Court, where the suit will end regardless of the trial court outcome, itself firmly chastises the State governments and Attorneys General.

Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

Now it’s just getting petty.  For the period surrounding this year’s Super Bowl, P Boston is banning anything to do with Philadelphia from the city.

Boston is banning cheesesteaks, Philadelphia cream cheese, beers associated with Philadelphia.  One Boston-based bakery chain even has cut ties—permanently—with its Philadelphia cream cheese distributor.

Boston is getting hysterical, too.  In addition to banning foodstuffs, that city is banning people: Will Smith and Sylvester Stallone, one because he was raised in Philadelphia, the other because he set the Rocky series of films in that city.  Even bald eagles—can you believe it?—are banned from the Esplanade.

This is another reason not to bother with the Super Bowl, at least for this year.

Withholding Evidence

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-Vice President Joe Biden (D) appears to have confessed to it.

Biden said a Congressional “gang of twelve” met with Obama White House officials on the matter and laid out what they knew.

Biden’s and Obama’s reaction?

“The president and I sat there and said ‘what the hell are we going to do?'” Biden said. “You go out there and unilaterally say ‘this is what’s happening,’ you’re going to be accused of…trying to tip the election.

So they sat on the information—us uninformed voters are just too grindingly stupid to be trusted with this sort of information, the Progressive-Democrat says.

The former Delaware senator said he and Obama were concerned that describing alleged Russian involvement to a higher extent “could be used as a weapon against” nominee Hillary Clinton.

Biden added,

The die had been cast here. This was all about the political play[.]

There it is, straight from the Progressive-Democrat’s mouth.  Party politics was more important than pursuing a possible Russian interference, more important even than letting us voters know about the potential.  The withholding is the Progressive-Democratic Party’s own attempt to “tip” the election.

All for the sole reasons of protecting his BFF’s (ex-President Barack Obama (D)) reputation and of protecting their Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Remember this duplicity in the fall.