Link to Original Source
Among the top of the three branches, the supreme court is probably the least fucked up at the moment.
Citizens United shows that they're still a contender.
It's difficult to pin down an exact date.
- It could have been when we started re-electing Congressmen the vast majority of the time, no matter how unpopular they were.
- It could have been when gerrymandering made its debut.
- It could have been when political parties started, leading people to vote for their team rather than who they thought was the best candidate.
- It could have been when money started to mean more than votes.
- It could have been one of the many instances where we have traded liberty for security.
TFA is bullshit. Equality isn't 50% men vs 50% women. Equality is equal opportunity, and proportional representation. If 30% of applicants are female, and 50% of accepted applicants are female, then that's not equality it's sexism.
Things are a little more complex than that. It could very well be that there is suddenly gender parity because that's how the pool of qualified individuals panned out, despite the gender ratio of applicants. It could even be that there would have been more women if not for some of the qualified women being turned away due to sexism. Similarly, if the ratio of accepted applicants was 90% men and 10% women, it could be because the vast majority of women candidates were terrible and the 10% was due to accepting sub-par women candidates.
You can't really tell by looking at gender ratios. They're OK as a warning indicator, but gender ratios alone are not proof of sexism in one direction or the other.
The reason we know there is widespread pro-male or pro-female sexism in many industries is because we have other facts in addition to the final ratios, from compensation numbers to steering women and men into particular job paths during school to societal stigmas about which genders are expected to perform which jobs.
Wrong.. It is saying person X cannot make more then Y amount. There is the possibility of making more if they raise the salaries of others but economics would/could forbid that. No amount of wrangling the terms can get around that.
Citation needed. I don't see why anyone would simply accept the assertion that it is impossible to re-distribute the incomes of a company such that the highest-paid individuals make less and the lowest-paid individuals make more.
If a company makes 2x profit, there is little economic difference in distributing x to the CEO and dividing x among the rest than there is in dividing 2x evenly among everyone. If a competitor could sweep in and lower prices, there is nothing stopping it from doing so when the profits are distributed unevenly that wouldn't do so when they were distributed evenly. Arguably, it would be better to distribute things more evenly, as it makes the original company more competitive at hiring good employees.