That's all good, but it still doesn't answer the question of how you suffer if someone else doing the same job makes as much as you.
You are a dipshit
,you cited another source. "Bush White House has resulted in restoration of 22 million of the missing messages" Can you read ?
The trick is that you have to read more than just the headline.
"An investigation into e-mails that seemed to have disappeared from the Bush White House has resulted in restoration of 22 million of the missing messages and a deal to uncover what could be millions of other e-mails that allegedly fell through cracks in the archiving system, two nonprofit groups said Monday.
However, an untold number of official e-mails from President George W. Bush's era will probably never be recovered because it would be extremely costly to do so, lawyers involved in lawsuits brought by the National Security Archive and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said.
"While we have not gotten every e-mail, some major gaps have been filled," said Meredith Fuchs, an attorney for the National Security Archive."
Contested cases where the Custodial Father (meaning the child currently lives with the father) retains custody: 17%
Contested cases where the Custodial Mother retains custody: 83%
Could you maybe provide a citation when you quote numbers like this? Because your figures suspiciously add up to 100% here, even though you're claiming success rates for two different groups. Are you sure you don't just mean something like, "In contested custody cases, 17% go to the father and 83% go to the mother"? Because those numbers roughly mirror the the split between custodial parents overall (roughly 80-85% mothers, 15-20% fathers. which has been roughly the same over the past 25 years at least).
Anyhow, I agree that there are often still lingering inequalities and prejudice in the court system against fathers, despite the overturning of the "Tender Years" doctrine.
However, I'd also offer some important advice to fathers here: if you're actually concerned about this statistic (and not just trying to win some internet argument) -- spend time with your kids.
Seriously. While prejudice does still exist in the court system, you know another reason why mothers get custody a lot more? Because moms disproportionately spend more time with the kids and taking care of them, thus they can prove they are the "primary caregiver." Who ends up taking off work when the kid is sick, leaving early to attend a parent-teacher conference, maybe even rearranging the whole work schedule to be home in the afternoons with the kids? MANY more moms than dads do these sorts of things, and if you look at estimated time parents spend doing childcare-related activities each week, you'll see that moms disproportionately take a LOT more of the work in most families.
This is the flip side to those of you who are complaining about women who "want equal pay" but can't work as long hours "because of the kids." Well -- if you're the dad who is working long hours and never sees his kids, you're making a choice about your priorities in life. And if divorce happens -- and many people think it could never happen to them -- the court has a greater chance of siding with the parent who demonstrated greater interest and time commitment with the kids.
I've personally seen this sort of stuff happen with a couple friends -- they didn't realize how little time they were spending with kids until it was too late, and then they ended up with even less time in a custody agreement. In fact, lots of dads seem to prefer this stuff -- they are driven to work long hours, and many aren't particularly interested in spending a lot of time with kids (particularly small ones).
So, if we're TRULY going to have this argument, perhaps we need to have some real statistics that take such trends into account. You know -- like those who say, "But women just aren't as interested in engineering -- they put their time into other things and want to be nurses and such!" Well, most dads are less interested in child-rearing, and they demonstrate this on a regular basis by spending less time with the kids. Do you really need to wonder why mothers win more custody battles -- which are often decided on the basis of which parents the kids "have a closer bond" with and which parent "will be less disruptive to their routine already in place"? If the mom if already spending four times as much time doing childcare-related stuff each week as the dad (not at all uncommon), it's likely to be less disruptive for the kids to stay with mom. It's that simple.
You want to keep your kids? Maybe it's time to reconsider all those complaints about women who "have to leave work early because of kids" and maybe volunteer to do it yourself sometime.
And you know what? Your kids will actually love it, and they'll love you more for it. Unless of course you don't really want to spend that much time with your kids -- in which case, when you later fight a custody battle, is it really about spending time with the kids, or is just to "win" against the ex-wife you now hate?
You sound tired. When you get some rest, have another look and see that the article you cited was an op-ed. Opinion. Commentary.
When they WSJ reports the news, there's a wage gap. When they give their feels, there isn't. Do you see a pattern here?
I am not sure how old you are but that is the story of one of the first cable companies as well.
It wasn't just cable companies -- the first cable channels distributed widely often had significantly reduced ad time (commercials maybe every 30 minutes or every 15), or no effective advertisements at all. (Well, even the ones without ads might run an ad for other programs on their channel or related ones every 30 minutes or hour or something, or sometimes between movies.) Here's an article from the New York Times in 1981 speculating about how cable TV will be transformed if it's "invaded by commercials."
You may not have notice when you were copy-pasting those links, the ONE STORY that was actually about the pay gap and had any data was about worldwide pay in developed nations. Women in most European countries have been making the same as men for decades. Hell, even in little countries like Serbia, there's been pay equity for over half a century. The other two stories were op-ed pieces by people who presented evidence, only feelings.
If you look up at the headline of this story, you will notice that it's, "Apple, Facebook, IBM, and Microsoft Sign White House Pledge For Equal Pay". Get that? White House pledge. That means US. And brother, there is absolutely a pay gap in the US. Don't believe me, listen to what those filthy SJW Socialists over at the Wall Street Journal had to say:
If you mean "hard" as in "actually performed an objectively measurable feat of strength",
Come on, man. What was the last time you think someone reading Slashdot "actually performed an objectively measurable feat of strength"?
This story is about Apple, Facebook, IBM and Microsoft. How often do you think the jobs we're talking about require "feats of strength"?
Professional sports would probably disagree with you on that.
Whoa there. Do you believe that the gold medal winning women olympic gymnasts didn't work as hard to achieve their accomplishments as their male counterparts? Did you see what they did?
Do you realize that the US women took home more medals in this olympics than the men?
And in regard to professional athletics, do you really believe - honestly - that the top male tennis players in the US had to work harder than the women players? The leading US women's tennis player has almost twice as many grand slam wins as the leading US men's tennis player.
Why does the progressive left always require other people to suffer to make up for suffering their policies have caused?
I'm curious. Why does it make you "suffer" because someone else gets paid as much as you do?
How does equal pay make you suffer?
And I think it typical that you can excuse evil
I do not excuse evil, I just measure it against a greater evil. As I said, it's about minimizing the harm.
Except ALL 22 MILLION Bush administrative emails were recovered from tape backups.
No sir, they were not.
I guess the people that are making accusations over that are either ignorant, or disingenuous.
Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they were requested from the House as part of an official investigation. She chose to print out everything she claimed was relevant (probably to avoid giving away metadata in headers, etc.) and then effectively "burned" the server, including (by her lawyer's own admission) tens of thousands of messages.
FBI investigations have now come up with thousands of emails which were NOT turned over in that paper dump. How many could have been part of those that were deleted and then lost when the server was wiped? We'll never know. Many of them were likely deleted in error, with her lawyers not realizing which ones should have been retained as they were going through tens of thousands of documents. But were ALL of these official state department emails recovered by the FBI (now 15,000+) deleted "in error"?
That's what's troubling about all of this. We have no way of knowing whether there may have been significant spoliation of evidence here (that's the legal term for intentionally, recklessly, or negligently destroying evidence). If this were a corporation who had been issued a subpoena and they acted in this manner, and it was later proven that they "lost" over ten thousand relevant documents in the process of their destruction of "irrelevant" documents, they would likely face significant legal sanctions, perhaps even criminal charges.
Legally, the safe course in this instance would have been to put the server in a secure location with legal supervision by Clinton's counsel until the matter could be resolved. Clinton's use of BleachBit is not surprising here -- not because it's proper protocol to delete secure information, but because it's the only reasonable way to delete potentially incriminating evidence of spoliation (even if most of it was accidental or whatever). If they hadn't used a very secure deletion protocol, then Clinton's attorneys would have been doing a VERY poor job at protecting her legally.
Personally, I'm not sure it's likely there was any "evil memo" buried among the State Department correspondence that could prove anything. (And if there were, I'm not convinced Clinton realized it.) On the other hand, I'm sure she had a bunch of private email dealings that she wouldn't want to get out -- if for nothing else then for bad public relations. Hence the destruction of everything on the server -- it's in line with the privacy paranoia that likely caused her to set up the server in the first place. But could there have been worse stuff there too? Maybe. Doesn't seem like we'll ever know, though, does it?
I repeat the question, PopeRatzo. Are you rationalizing Clinton's destruction of evidence as ok because the Bush administration deleted a really big number of emails?
Are you asking me for a moral or legal judgement? Morally, I find pretty much everyone who runs for this office is repugnant, with only a handful of exceptions. Currently we have a couple of morally unbalanced people running for president.
However, as a veteran, I have learned that malignant competence is always preferable to incompetent foolishness and moral depravity when it comes to running a big organization. That's why I will vote against Donald Trump in November. It's strictly damage control.
So I'm afraid I must repeat (and I take no pleasure in saying this, believe me) your only three options this election are Trump, Clinton, or throwing your vote away.
That logic only follows if you believe that voting for any losing candidate is "throwing your vote away."
I completely agree with you that we have a horrific two-party duopoly and that it is reinforced by the first-past-the-post voting.
HOWEVER, that system only indicates a trend toward a two-party system -- it doesn't guarantee that those two parties will be the only parties for all time, nor does it guarantee that the platforms of those parties will remain stable for all time.
The losing party in a Presidential election will most certainly pay some attention to what went wrong in the previous election, and if a huge number of votes were siphoned off to a third party, they might consider taking some action to prevent that from happening in the future. That might involve tweaking the platform or something to avoid losing those voters again.
Or, even better -- a large enough showing by a 3rd-party candidate could finally break the MEDIA reinforcement of the duopoly, since that's truly where the problem lies today. Perot's run was essentially a one-off, but the alternatives in most election years are durable parties (like the Libertarians, the Greens, etc.). If one of them actually could succeed in getting even 10% of votes, it might be harder for media folks to ignore them continuously as they do in most election years.
That's the real battle -- trying to get media attention. Because this year is truly a year that anything could happen. It's why the two parties fought so hard to keep the 3rd parties out of public debates. (That's the big mistake the parties made with Perot in 1992, and had he not dropped out for a while before rejoining the race again, he likely would have ended up with even higher numbers of support.)
So many people hate BOTH Clinton and Trump that if you put a better option on a national stage with them, a significant number of people might actually start thinking "Huh, maybe there are better options out there!" Recall all the massive swings in support that happened during the primaries this year due to the debates... now imagine you actually put somebody on stage that starts making sense next to the person the majority of Americans think is a liar and the person the majority of Americans think is loud-mouthed blowhard.
But go ahead -- keep up your "throw your vote away" nonsense and reinforcing the duopoly.
Due to lack of disk space, this fortune database has been discontinued.