advertisement

J. KARL MILLER: War on women was not waged by Republicans

Wednesday, May 2, 2012 | 6:00 a.m. CDT; updated 7:42 p.m. CDT, Wednesday, May 2, 2012

A couple of weeks ago, in my weekly column lead-in, I referred to "Presidential Wars" and their collective records of success or failure. I have since discovered I was remiss in my listing in that I did not include a conflict that, while not precisely a presidentially-sponsored war, deserves inclusion as one waged by a political party.

That which I inadvertently omitted was the insidious "War on Women" waged by the Republican Party. It should be obvious to all that the GOP holds a negative view of females inasmuch as Republicans are all males who have not mothers, wives, sisters, girlfriends, fiances, etc. It is also understood as fact that we mean-spirited and miserly right-wingers long ago threw grandma (and grandpa) under the bus.

I think most will agree that the gist of the above paragraph is ridiculous to the point of abject silliness. Nevertheless, it is no more asinine than is the fictitious sham described as the GOP's battle against the fairer sex.

The Democrats have a long history of creating victims in order to flesh out their campaign rhetoric. A recent example is the totally unsubstantiated claim that the requirement for photo ID to vote is a Republican plot to disenfranchise minorities, the poor, the elderly, the disabled and otherwise disadvantaged persons in their right to vote. That the U.S. Supreme Court has found no evidence of this in upholding several state laws is irrelevant so long as there exists a gullible electorate.

The largest class of "victims" is of course "the 99 percent" — that segment of the population that is disadvantaged because of the ill-gotten wealth of the "greedy" 1 percent. Much of the Democratic Party leadership embraced the "Occupy Movement" in its protest against income and/or wealth inequality.

Initially launched against Wall Street, the movement spread nearly nationwide as "occupiers" willfully ignored property rights, sanitation, city and town ordinances and law enforcement. That they left piles of trash in their wake, blocked traffic, interfered with merchants and, in general, made a nuisance of themselves, was of no consequence — they were exercising freedom of speech and assembly.

The first shot in the faux war on women was initiated by the administration's decision not to exempt religious employers' health care plans from requirements to offer contraception. The resulting opposition from Catholic bishops and other denominations as an assault on religious freedoms was blamed instead on the GOP, alleging falsely that Republicans were plotting against a woman's right to birth control.

That the issue was never the right to birth control was completely ignored by the administration and most of the media. The essential point, where the president and the Health and Human Services secretary found the authority to declare contraception as an entitlement, was never answered. The GOP has no objection to contraception; however, it believes it is a personal responsibility.

There was also a cheap shot, delivered against Mr. Romney's wife by Democratic consultant Hilary Rosen, alleging that as a stay-at-home mom, "Ann Romney had never worked a day in her life." Not only is this the epitome of feminist arrogance, the notion that not participating in the workplace renders a woman out of touch is absurd. My mother (yes, I had a mother) stayed home to raise my brothers and me, yet she lacked neither political nor economic acumen.

It is ironic that Teresa Heinz Kerry, a billionaire in her own right and wife of Sen. John Kerry, levied a similar attack on Laura Bush when she doubted Mrs. Bush ever had a "real job." Perhaps nonunion employees don't count.

Also, there is the "gender-wage gap." We have long been subjected to the notion that full-time working women earn but 77 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. The Labor Department defines full time as working 35 or more hours per week.

Department of Labor records show nearly 55 percent of those equaling or exceeding the 35-hour work week were men. Moreover, in 2007, 25 percent of the male work force toiled 41 or more hours weekly — by comparison, 14 percent of employed women worked a similar schedule. Accordingly, the much publicized "gender-wage" gap is one of gender hours instead.

Finally, to blame so-called gender inequality on the GOP, as Democrats are wont to do, requires chutzpah to the nth degree along with a sizable bloc of easily duped voters. The Democratic Party has controlled the House of Representatives for 46 of the 62 years since 1950 and the Senate for 42 of those same years.

The Republican Party must be an extremely powerful force, if, by controlling Congress for less than a third of the past 62 years, it has exerted a greater influence on gender affairs than Democrats who held the legislative reins for more than two thirds of the time.

Women in the work force and in politics have proven they are more than capable of holding their own. Portrayal of them as "victims" is as patronizing as it is false.

J. Karl Miller retired as a colonel in the Marine Corps. He is a Columbia resident and can be reached via email at JKarlUSMC@aol.com. Questions? Contact Elizabeth Conner.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Bruce Sisler May 2, 2012 | 7:41 a.m.

Well said, Mr. Miller.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith May 2, 2012 | 7:56 a.m.

Ah, Karl, but "victimology" is a mainstay of the political Left, whether the victims male or female. After all, victims are ipso facto unable to fend for themselves and therefore require close supervision. Were the victims capable of independent thought and sufficiently motivated to manage their own affairs then they wouldn't be victims, would they?

What is a slave master without any slaves? Nothing!

(Report Comment)
Brendon Steenbergen May 2, 2012 | 8:54 a.m.

J Karl; clearly the voice of women everywhere. Stick to your titillating restaurant reviews of places like Red Lobster and Bob Evans. You truly have your finger on the pulse of the nation.

(Report Comment)
Gary Straub May 2, 2012 | 9:32 a.m.

Col Miller, I assume that you are in constant contact with Rove, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfield, the Koch brothers, Bush senior, and the many others that control the GOP,since you feel qualified to be their spokesperson. If you think the contraceptive issue is the war on women then you obviously have no clue as to what reality is. Your op-eds are generally nothing more than opinions but this one is so far out that it enters the realm of sci-fi, and if that is how you form your opinions then so be it.
1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.

2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."

3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 2, 2012 | 9:46 a.m.

Mr Steenburger, I don't pretend to be the voice of women nor the voice of men, nor even the voice of the Republican Party--instead, I consider myself the voice of reason. The only reason I respond to your obviously self-adulatory remark is that virtually all others who disagree with my opinions at least possess the intellectual fortitude to set forth their differences in detail. While I may not always accept nor welcome their dissent, I do respect their taking the time and effort to spell out their dissatisfaction.

Have a nice day.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush May 2, 2012 | 10:02 a.m.

If I close my eyes
And plug my ears, all your "facts"
Suddenly appear.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 2, 2012 | 10:11 a.m.

Mr Straub,

Your comment that my op/eds are generally no more than opinions is rather amusing in that op/eds are always found on the Opinion Page of the newspapers. Op/eds reflect the opinons of the writer and should not be interpreted or considered reporting of news. Everyone who reads them are free to agree or disagree--a freedom which does not exist everywhere.

I won't bore our readers with taking on the cherry picked examples you post; however, I do have one question for you. Your " Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too." indicates that you must believe all of the elderly poor women to be Democrats. Contrary to popular belief, we Republicans have mothers, wives, sisters and girlfriends too who would not be thrilled at a "war" launched at them. Additionally, Republicans are sufficiently proficient in arithmetic to realize that women outnumber men in the U S. Who in their right mind would be so politically artless as to declare war on women when they are not only outnumbered by them but also out maneuvered and out witted at every turn?

Have a nice day.

(Report Comment)
matt arnall May 2, 2012 | 10:41 a.m.

So Mr Miller likes to consider himself the voice of reason.....that makes my head spin.

(Report Comment)
Gary Straub May 2, 2012 | 10:55 a.m.

Colonel, I am very aware what an op-ed is and I was acknowledging that your pieces are merely your opinion. However, the op-ed section is usually relegated to those whose opinions have some credibility, as obviously yours do, but this one is so much an example of what a vast number of women say is "why do men think they are the deciders of women's issues?" (paraphrased of course). I did not cherry pick these issues, it was done by women who chose these as the top ten assaults. The list is way too long to put in this forum. A little research into the matter would produce much more.

I doubt that a poor elderly woman is too worried about being a republican or democrat, when she has to make a decision whether to eat dog food or buy medicine. I really wish you would not talk like being a republican or democrat is a race, we are all Americans free to vote for whomever we choose. Hopefully we choose what we think is best for our country as a whole, not what directly affects us or to defend an ideology.

Thanks, and may your day be good as well.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro May 2, 2012 | 11:24 a.m.

Progressive liberal radical feminists declared war on traditional family values a long time ago. The dems enabled some good things to come from their agenda and unfortunately some destructive societal, economical, political and altering religious consequences.
It is this same group which backs the encouragement of homosexual activity to destroy the nuclear family and give big government control over the populace.
There's no "war" against womankind. Just push back from those who understand the bigger picture.
("It is not politically correct to say, "the women's movement has harmed the American family." That statement is sexist. There can be no debate on whether the statement is true or false.")
http://theobamafile.com/_opinion/Politic...
("FEMINISM
Poisonous ideologies:
"Family life was and always will be the foundation of any civilization. Destroy the family and you destroy the country.")
http://www.whale.to/b/feminism.html
("Curing Feminists Indoctrination")
http://antimisandry.com/marriage-divorce...
("The 21st century is becoming the era of the woman. The feminization of our schools and other learning organizations has placed females in a role of increasing achievement while leaving behind their male counterparts. Women have begun to use their own strengths in leadership to excel in corporate industry and at higher education institutions competing with men. The natural tendencies of women to work in teams, build consensus and communicate openly are encouraged and reinforced in our schools from kindergarten through the high school years.
Enrollment of boys in colleges and universities nationwide is declining, and many institutions now worry seriously about the widening gender gap on their campuses, estimated nationally at 56 percent girls versus 44 percent boys in a 2006 U.S. Census Bureau report. Even in the hard sciences and engineering, where males traditionally have dominated, the margin is narrowing. Recent data compiled by the U.S. Department of Education indicate college-bound females are more apt than males both to complete college-preparatory courses in secondary school and to finish their college degrees.")
http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorA...

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm May 2, 2012 | 12:19 p.m.

"instead, I consider myself the voice of reason."

The delusion is strong with this one!

(Report Comment)
Robert Tyler May 2, 2012 | 12:57 p.m.

J. Karl Miller could not be more wrong.

There's nothing imaginary about the Republicans' War on Women. Indeed, it is wildly out of control. We can see that right across America, from the Republicans in Congress blocking the renewal of the laws against domestic violence; to governor Scott Walker and his Republican majority in the Wisconsin State legislature repealing Wisconsin's"equal pay for equal work" law; to Republicans weakening the laws against rape in many of the State legislatures; to Republican legislator Terry England in the Georgia legislature likening women to livestock (specifically pigs and sheep) and making truly vicious legislative proposals accordingly.

Re-electing President Obama, and comprehensively defeating Republican candidates for Congress and the State legislatures, is the only way to stop this Taliban-ization of America -- for women, and for the fathers, brothers, husbands and sons who respect them and do not want their legal rights to be shredded, or to see them vilified or brutalized.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 2, 2012 | 1:20 p.m.

Karl said: "The Republican party must be an extremely powerful force, if, by controlling Congress for less than a third of the past 62 years, it has exerted a greater influence on gender affairs than Democrats who held the legislative reins for more than two thirds of the time."

Hmmmmn. 75% of the population is Christian--not to mention whatever additional percentage includes all other religions--and yet religious leaders across the country keep moaning about the fictitious "War on Religion" being spearheaded by "the left" (the vast majority of whom are themselves Christian) and the near-negligible irreligious population out there. They even have the nerve to compare their current situation to that of Christians back in the Roman Empire.

The funny thing is, I'm pretty sure you don't find THAT argument all that unreasonable, now do you?

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro May 2, 2012 | 1:41 p.m.

("Democratic Congressman: There is No Republican War on Women")
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/04/09/democ...
It's just an Obama campaign strategy to vilify our future President, Mitt Romney.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 2, 2012 | 2:41 p.m.

Ray Shapiro's post is a perfect example of the iron-age mentality unfortunately so popular still today.

"It is this same group which backs the encouragement of homosexual activity to destroy the nuclear family and give big government control over the populace.
There's no "war" against womankind. Just push back from those who understand the bigger picture."

1. Homosexuals have existed for far longer than your religion. Homosexuality has also been documented in dozens of other animal species, aka it's complete nonsense to claim that it's a choice people willingly make in defiance of whatever man in the sky you believe in.

2. Strange that you accuse "progressive liberal radical feminists" of wanting to give "big government control over the populace," and in the same sentence effectively state that we should curb "homosexual activity" and the destruction of "the nuclear family." Hmmmmn, I wonder who we're going turn to to get this done.

3. No, you don't understand the bigger picture. In fact, you're wrong to such an astounding degree that it would be entertaining if your views didn't have such a devastating effect on society.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 2, 2012 | 2:43 p.m.

Bleh, I really wish there was an edit button somewhere. Point #3 above could sure use some proofreading.

(Report Comment)
Greg Allen May 2, 2012 | 3:08 p.m.

The AASA quote provided by Mr. Shapiro seems to hit the nail on the head. Share power, for most of human history held by men, with women? Horrors!

Fear isn't a good reason to keep people as 'less than'.

(Report Comment)
Brendon Steenbergen May 2, 2012 | 3:39 p.m.

While I consider it a kind of honor to receive a direct rebuke from Mr. Frown himself, I have to disagree with his admonishment on both points. His line of self-professed reason is often misguided and my comment had nothing to do with myself.

The comment I'm now posting is clearly self-adulatory. It's all about me.

(Report Comment)
Brendon Steenbergen May 2, 2012 | 3:50 p.m.

I have to admit, I am an avid reader of J Karl's 'Stay Off My Lawn! Report." Maybe I enjoy fuming in disagreement, or laughing at shockingly out of touch rhetoric, either way, I can't get enough his missives. I like to imagine him hunting and pecking on an ancient Underwood while firing back scotch next to an even more ancient cat. I get a kind of sick joy reading his passages while he stares back at me from my monitor with a disapproving scowl!

(Report Comment)
matt arnall May 2, 2012 | 3:57 p.m.

Reading these articles is getting to be more and more difficult. Mr miller, do you remember about a month ago when you wanted to return to the more civil times of past generations? This kind of totally biased, one-sided nonsense spewing is not going to bridge any gaps from your views to the views that others may hold. Your unreasonable hatred for people that have different perspectives is scary, and I am quite sure that you should not be speaking on the behalf of women. You do not seem qualified.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 2, 2012 | 4:18 p.m.

J. Karl M. - I have to side with Mr. Straub on this one. He did Not "cherry pick his examples of the R' war on women.

He just copied Geo. Soros funded, Moveon.org piece:Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women. Didn't credit poor Geo. or anyone and stated "it was done by women who chose these as the top ten assaults." Think Progress, also was into it. Read enough to note
the similarity to moveon.
Can we imagine that most or all of the intellectually outlined accusations against Republicans (save Hopfenblatt, who stuck to his generic line of crap), posted here may have come from the same source?

(Report Comment)
Brendon Steenbergen May 2, 2012 | 4:30 p.m.

@frank. It's called an echo chamber, and it cuts both ways. That's why JKarl and co. have been citing Hilary Rosen left and right recently. Even though no one knew who she was a month ago, you'd think from conservative pundits that she was the most important woman in America now. Create message, send out, repeat. It's like the Dougie last year. Everybody's doing it.

(Report Comment)
Brian Trenhaile May 2, 2012 | 4:30 p.m.

Speaking of cherry picking: J. Karl did a magnificent job of doing just that in his (terribly biased) opinion article.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor May 2, 2012 | 4:52 p.m.

Hold on a sec folks...

First, he is a Marine and that is smiling for a Marine. You should know this by now. Has been covered...

Second, you put the smack down on the Col for having the audacity to speak for Republicans and immediately follow by trotting out a bill from a state senator in South Dakota, who probably won his election by a 5-3 vote tally, as if that guy DOES speak for all Republicans. (A female dem in OK proposed a bill that would make ejaculating anywhere other than in a female illegal. WoW! You dems are ALL crazy!)

Then a quick shot calling out the Col for asking that we all converse more civilly and then accusing him of unreasoned hatred when none has been displayed.

At least Brendon has a sense of humor...

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 2, 2012 | 4:58 p.m.

Hmmmn, interesting that I'm the one with the "generic line of crap," supposedly against Republicans, when I didn't say a single thing about 'em.

My first post was merely a comparison of J Karl's argument flipped the other direction (and his unwillingness to treat them as equally ridiculous), and my second post was in response to Ray Shapiro's outdated, nonsense views on women and gays.

So yeah, where's the "generic line of crap" against Republicans? There's a difference between merely arguing with Republicans and arguing against them because they're Republicans. There are left-leaning homophobes out there too, just as there are otherwise left-leaning men who still think women belong in the kitchen. My arguments are directed at them all the same.

Maybe you should do away with the generic lines of crap yourself, considering that your accusations against me have absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Next time, make sure to actually read my comments first.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle May 2, 2012 | 5:20 p.m.

The GOP may not have *had* a war on women, but... it certainly does now, despite classic blame-the-victim, shift-the-responsibility rhetoric to the contrary.

This sad fact, like certain other issues, is not something that Colonel Klink, or any other privileged white male, has any real control over. The fact that they seem to believe both that they can, and have any real right to, is the problem. If you think a column like this will make women stop and think, "Oh, OK, I just misunderstood." - um... good luck with that.

If pregnancy affected males, this would be a very different world. The fact that it's not already a very different world, when pregnancy affects 50% of the population, is proof enough of a war on women.

Colonel Klink is concerned over who is getting blamed for the war. I am concerned about the war.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 2, 2012 | 5:45 p.m.

Derrick: I assume by "Colonel Klink", you are referring to Colonel Miller?

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 2, 2012 | 5:59 p.m.

Jona H. - "Karl said: "The Republican party must be an extremely powerful force,..."

Your,"first post was merely a comparison of J Karl's argument flipped the other direction (and his unwillingness to treat them as equally ridiculous), and my second post was in response to Ray Shapiro's outdated, nonsense views on women and gays."

You quote KM, whose entire piece was about Republicans, then protest Republicans were not in your mind or words in your ensuing posts? You ridicule Christian religion.
Decry "war on religion" in spite the hundreds of law suits and settlement under threat from ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, only recently reduced by intervention from conservative law firms, providing service free as does ACLU.

Then, refer to a call for protection of the "family = man, woman, kids and rejection of homosexuality (may the AIDS epidemic be mentioned here? I thot not.), as "the iron-age mentality".

But you were never wrote, Republicans!

That J., is why I referred to it as "generic". You already know why I called it "crap".

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith May 2, 2012 | 6:27 p.m.

@ mike mentor:

Actually, as I've previously noted, Colonel Miller commited one error in the 1950s when he mistakenly enrolled at the wrong University of Missouri campus. At that time there were only two campuses to choose from, whereas now there are four.

Most of us have made mistakes in our youth.:)

(Report Comment)
Jim Clayton May 2, 2012 | 6:53 p.m.

If a democrat says something it's O.K., but a republican says the same thing then it's called for an investigation and censoring. Case in point with Bill Mahr referring to Sarah Palin using the'c' word and 't' word and giving a million dollars to Obama and he accepts it, but Rush Limbaugh calls that woman a slut and he apologized and is still castigated for it. Ed Schultz goes on TV and slams Laura Ingraham a talk show s--- but that's Ok because he's a dem too.Hypocrisy abounds.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 2, 2012 | 7:13 p.m.

Ellis, when I enrolled at the Columbia campus at the University of Missouri, there was a popular saying, to wit: "9 out of 10 Missouri women are beautiful, the 10th enrols in Missouri School of Mines and Metalurgy. We also had Stephens and Christian College nearby with Central Dairy on Broadway as the popular meeting place. Need I say more?

There is one issue on which we are in total agreement though Ellis--the joy of being a liberal is never having to admit you could be wrong.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 2, 2012 | 7:20 p.m.

Jim, your mention of Ed Schultz and the "Ed Show" is priceless. Ed, the show's host, is MSNBC's answer to Fred Flintstone. I fully expect him to exclaim "Yabba Dabba Doo" following an intellectual denouncing of any conservative.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 2, 2012 | 7:51 p.m.

Until President Obama disavows Sharia law and declares it a war on women, until he vows to safeguard women in Afghanistan, until he uninvites the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House, liberals and Democrats will have absolutely zero creditbility on declaring any GOP war on women. How about the liberal war on unborn children?

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 2, 2012 | 8:08 p.m.

Brendon S. - Don't feel forgotten. Yours, "It's called an echo chamber". Sorry, it is not! It is called propaganda and is used by the left, whenever they can convince themselves that the subject might help someone believe that their universal lie, socialism , can be a reasonable alternative to the evils of capitalism. "Everyone is not doing it! But, I'll listen.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 2, 2012 | 8:51 p.m.

Frank, today's liberals are much like the Germans and Japanese of WW2. They've lied to themselves and everybody else for so long, they absolutely believe their own propaganda. Then when reality smacks them in the nose, they have no clue as to what happened or why. It creates total confusion, anger, bitterness, and jealously when the foolishness of their whole philosophy of life proves to be utter and complete nonsense.

(Report Comment)
Daniel Jordan May 2, 2012 | 10:21 p.m.

"[T]oday's liberals are much like the Germans and Japanese of WW2." Wow. Looks like what I've read elsewhere is true: the greatest danger is trivialization.

(Report Comment)
Brendon Steenbergen May 2, 2012 | 11:48 p.m.

Oh Frank. Just because you don't have a column like JKarl's, don't feel unappreciated. Your brand of poppycock is just as precious! I admire your consistency.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith May 3, 2012 | 4:39 a.m.

@ J. Karl Miller:

To turn serious for a moment, the important thing is that each of us has been satisfied with our respective college experiences, something that does not seem to be universal.

If you had gone to what was then officially called University of Missouri School of Mines & Metallurgy (it says that one one of my diplomas)your only ROTC choice would have been United states Army Corps of Engineers. Granted, you might still have joined the Marines. Your branch of service has that marvelous Latin motto, whereas ours has a French motto that means "we will try (strive)." We don't guarantee results!

As for the saying about Missouri women, that's off by a factor of one magnitude: if we'd had one in every ten women at our campus we'd have had a viable number of women on campus in the 1950s; the actual ratio was 100:1, and some of those women were married to male students. Today the ratio is 3:1, pretty much standard for America's three dozen or so public and private technical institutes.

A friend of mine who has her BS (geology), MS (engineering management) and PhD (geophysics) from MS&T likes to tell the story about how she enrolled as a freshman and made friends with the limited number of women on campus. Then she got busy with studies and neglected her female friends. When she got back to her friends she found THEY WERE NO LONGER THERE! Several had married male students and left campus when their husbands graduated.

She has never married, which may be one reason she has a PhD. :)

As for ugly, that's somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Astronaut Janet Kavandi when in her prime was literally the poster girl for NASA recruiting.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 3, 2012 | 4:39 a.m.

Actually the greatest danger is a power hungry left that seeks to control every aspect of our lives, regulate industry to death, and implement a societal system that never has nor ever will work and can only govern by use of
extreme repression. One that sets up a phone system in the White House for people to call to report their neighbors who happen to disagree with the president's public policy.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 3, 2012 | 4:44 a.m.

Ellis, regardless of gender or era, if you went to the
University of Missouri School of Mines & Metallurgy, you should be considered for compensation from the government simply because you did not attend the Colorado School of Mines.

I will now don my helmet, body armor, and step into my bunker in expectation of a response.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith May 3, 2012 | 5:59 a.m.

What's wrong with either MS&T or CSM? Maybe you missed the post (on another subject and sometime ago), but I am an unpaid recruiter for both MS&T and CSM.

Which I recommend depends upon what a high school graduate wants as a major. CSM has less engineering majors than MS&T, but I recommend CSM for both Chemical Engineering and Petroleum Engineering even though both institutes have those majors.

Off campus there's absolutely no contest: Golden, Colorado (~20,000) is a great place to go to college. All the advantages of Denver but without living in Denver; less than a 30 minute drive to Boulder. At the south end of Golden is an interchange for I-70, which will take you to many of the Colorado ski areas. Golden is the home of Molson-Coors brewery - free tours and liquid samples! Columbia, Missouri, eat your heart out!

Factoid: CSM is the oldest public institution of higher learning in Colorado (1874). Both CSM and University of Colorado were chartered in the same year, but CSM has the earlier charter date.

But there's worse than Rolla, Missouri - far worse! New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology is located in Socorro, New Mexico. New Mexico Tech students refer to Socorro as "SUCK-oro," and it does. The campus (small) has beautiful lawns (monster sprinkler system) and homes near campus, which are occupied by faculty, are decent, but it goes down hill from there. Civilization, in the form of Albuquerque, is more than an hour's drive away on I-25.

Not the response you expected?

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking May 3, 2012 | 8:56 a.m.

Robert Tyler wrote:

"There's nothing imaginary about the Republicans' War on Women. Indeed, it is wildly out of control. We can see that right across America, from the Republicans in Congress blocking the renewal of the laws against domestic violence; to governor Scott Walker and his Republican majority in the Wisconsin State legislature repealing Wisconsin's"equal pay for equal work" law; to Republicans weakening the laws against rape in many of the State legislatures; to Republican legislator Terry England in the Georgia legislature likening women to livestock (specifically pigs and sheep) and making truly vicious legislative proposals accordingly."

Typical left-wing hyperbole.

Don Milsop wrote:

"Actually the greatest danger is a power hungry left that seeks to control every aspect of our lives, regulate industry to death, and implement a societal system that never has nor ever will work and can only govern by use of
extreme repression. One that sets up a phone system in the White House for people to call to report their neighbors who happen to disagree with the president's public policy."

Typical right wing hyperbole.

Things must really be pretty good when we have to distort events to such a level to get people interested in them. So much of media now is about ratings and entertainment, and so little of it is about fact and thoughtful discussion.

The greatest threat to our society is not socialism, big government, loss of liberty, or "war on Whatever". It is the constant, rising, knee jerk hyperbole that clogs our media and legislatures, on both sides. Both sides champion simple answers to complicated problems, and most of them are dead wrong. Furthermore, so few bills address substantive problems, because most of them are either minor partisan issues, or outside of legislators abilities to influence. That's the biggest danger to our society.

DK

(Report Comment)
mike mentor May 3, 2012 | 9:24 a.m.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mark, don't you know this is the internet???

(jk, great post!)

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 3, 2012 | 12:28 p.m.

Ellis,
Understanding Engineers #1
To the optimist, the glass is half-full. To the pessimist, the glass is half-empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Understanding Engineers #2

What is the difference between mechanical engineers and civil engineers? Mechanical engineers build weapons. Civil engineers build targets.

Understanding Engineers #3

The graduate with a science degree asks, "Why does it work?" The graduate with an engineering degree asks, "How does it work?" The graduate with an accounting degree asks, "How much will it cost?" The graduate with an arts degree asks, "Do you want fries with that?"

And, to be totaly serious, I have always had the greatest respect for the Mo School of Mines and Metalurgy and of my late youngest brother who was an MU Chemical Engineer Grad and the Operations Director for Celanese.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield May 3, 2012 | 12:29 p.m.

Birth control is widely available. It's also pretty inexpensive and available for free in some cases. If you still can't afford it and need it to prevent a pregnancy -- versus other applications -- then you should ask your man to help pay for it. If he won't, that's an indication of how much he cares about you. A lot of unwanted pregnancies and neglected children could be avoided by men and women simply being more choosy about whom they lay with.

If you're a woman on Medicaid, you can get sterilized entirely at taxpayer expense.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro May 3, 2012 | 12:41 p.m.

@Mike Mentor:
And yet not one member of the fairer sex seems to have entered into this "internet" rumble.
(Perhaps they're just choosing to let the men handle this battle?)

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 3, 2012 | 1:03 p.m.

RayS: I had the same thought.....not a single woman discussing this topic on this forum. Just a bunch of men who think they know.
_______________________

JimmyB: "....then you should ask your man to help pay for it. If he won't, that's an indication of how much he cares about you."

I heartily agree. The REAL war on women is perpetrated by their own men. And by the original choice.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro May 3, 2012 | 1:38 p.m.

("Michael Williams May 3, 2012 | 1:03 p.m.
RayS: I had the same thought.....not a single woman discussing this topic on this forum.")
Or any married ones for that matter.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield May 3, 2012 | 1:44 p.m.

Michael, if you want to hear a truly pathetic story, ask a pediatrics nurse what it's like to watch a mother in her early 20s struggle to fill out paperwork when her husband is not her newborn's father.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor May 3, 2012 | 1:47 p.m.

Now we are on to something!

If we take that angle, I don't typically think of the dirt bag "playa" that walks out on his baby momma and his children as the republican type. Trying to put myself in a momma's shoes, I would rather have a man tell me the government shouldn't have to pay for all the stuff I need than a man who abandons his family.

Where's the war again???

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 3, 2012 | 1:55 p.m.

This, the Col.'s piece , is not about a War on Women. It is about a propaganda campaign launched by D's against R's.

Mark F. appears. indicates, as usual, that liberal and conservative input are both the same, both "distort events" then leaves us with the most inaccurate post of the three.

To state, "The greatest threat to our society is not socialism, big government, loss of liberty," one has to have been stationed somewhere else with no knowledge of the history of our earth, or prefer to ignore it with a "head in sand" posture. The most accurate use of his words might be "There is no other threat to our society greater than socialism, big government, loss of liberty!"

Rush L. has been playing LBJ and R. Reagan speeches again. To state that no difference existed between that D' and that R' would also be grossly inaccurate. I noted another of Reagan's tidbits":

"It's not that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

(Report Comment)
Brian Trenhaile May 3, 2012 | 2:17 p.m.

Great job proving his point @ Frank Christian. I thought you might.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 3, 2012 | 3:09 p.m.

Brian Trenhaile - If your post means that I proved Mark Foecking's point, why not give us a break and divulge how I did it. I won't mind.

(Report Comment)
Brian Trenhaile May 3, 2012 | 3:37 p.m.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." - Dale Carnegie

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 3, 2012 | 4:00 p.m.

Ellis, I will never forget the sign in the engineering department of one of the companies I worked for:

"There comes a time in the life of every project when it becomes necessary to shoot the engineer and actually begin production."

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 3, 2012 | 4:04 p.m.

Mark, I will disagree with you that my comments were hyperbole. The left wing socialist policies Obama and his administration and Democrats in congress have sought to implement are exactly what has caused the financial crisis in Europe and the downfall of the Soviet Union. Those systems are killers of the human spirit and progress in technology. And as for the White House report your neighbor comment, it's 100% accurate.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 3, 2012 | 4:28 p.m.

Gentlemen, you are absolutely correct in your discovery that not one woman, whether agrieved or satisfied, has chimed in with an opinion on the "Republican's War on Women." It just so happens that I received this email today from one of the fairer sex (also the deadlier of the species) that I will share with you.

"If I could add a comment to the article:

Get over yourselves, gentlemen. Some of we women were chided "Stop your whining. We don't whine in this home, we find a way to fix it."

The only war on women is thinking that the strategy should be that women need extra special help. Real women discovered where to find the help. No war necessary. The qualities of faith, leadership, integrity, respect were in those of us who recognized that the strength was in we, the women.

Real women don't need any political philosophy to survive and flourish, we need determination to succeed without the help of men. Then we can really love the male species...why? Because we love ourselves."

Women can take care of themselves--ask any military wife who performs supermom duties when the man deploys for a year.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 3, 2012 | 4:55 p.m.

JKarl: "Real women discovered where to find the help."
________________________

Geez, I wish I'd said that, but I admit the effect would have been vastly weaker.

Thanks to her for allowing you to post her words, and thanks to you for posting it.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 3, 2012 | 5:17 p.m.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." - Dale Carnegie"

Shot down? By Dale Carnegie?

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 3, 2012 | 5:23 p.m.

frank said: "You quote KM, whose entire piece was about Republicans, then protest Republicans were not in your mind or words in your ensuing posts?"

Uh, yeah. Once again, he seemed to take issue with this logic when directed at Republicans, and yet he sings a slightly different tune when the same logic is pointed in the other direction. That isn't criticism against Republicans, that's criticism against his cherry-picked logic.

frank said: "You ridicule Christian religion."

And this has what to do with the Republican party? I didn't know only Republicans were Christians, and I guess I never said in that same post that the vast majority of Democrats are Christians themselves.

frank said: "Decry "war on religion" in spite the hundreds of law suits and settlement under threat from ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, only recently reduced by intervention from conservative law firms, providing service free as does ACLU."

Yes, because wanting to uphold the 1st Amendment is the same thing as waging a war on religion (sarcasm). Funny that you don't seem to object all that much to people who defend the 2nd Amendment just as fervently.

frank said: "Then, refer to a call for protection of the "family = man, woman, kids and rejection of homosexuality (may the AIDS epidemic be mentioned here? I thot not.), as "the iron-age mentality"."

Uh, yeah, because Ray didn't offer a bunch of links to the huge problem that is women finally being treated as human beings and not 2nd-class citizens (sarcasm). That's why his mentality is iron-age, and yes, his views on homosexuality are equally dumb and outdated, as are yours if you agree with them.

frank said: "But you were never wrote, Republicans!"

Yeah, because my argument was never about Republicans (not sarcasm).

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 3, 2012 | 5:28 p.m.

Jim Clayton said: "If a democrat says something it's O.K., but a republican says the same thing then it's called for an investigation and censoring. Case in point with Bill Mahr referring to Sarah Palin using the'c' word and 't' word and giving a million dollars to Obama and he accepts it, but Rush Limbaugh calls that woman a slut and he apologized and is still castigated for it. Ed Schultz goes on TV and slams Laura Ingraham a talk show s--- but that's Ok because he's a dem too.Hypocrisy abounds."

I don't know how many of you buy this argument, but it's funny how you keep parroting the same thing and don't care about the facts. For one, if Bill Maher did use those words against Sarah Palin, prove it (a Youtube video will do just fine). Secondly, I posted a video of Ed Schultz apologizing the very next day, on his own show, and taking himself off the air for what he said. Laura Ingraham forgave him because she herself thought it was a genuine, heartfelt apology.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 3, 2012 | 5:31 p.m.

Don Milsop said: "How about the liberal war on unborn children?"

Hmmmn, speaking of fictitious claims...

You do know that a good chunk of pro-choice women would never themselves have an abortion, right? They're called pro-choice for a reason, not pro-abortion.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 3, 2012 | 5:35 p.m.

We can argue all day, but the biggest "war on women" is their men.

Everything else is second place.

I'd tackle the hard one, first.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 3, 2012 | 6:35 p.m.

I agree, Michael, hence why I called Ray Shapiro's views outdated. He made vague references to "the nuclear family," but the links he provided suggest he's one of those people who thinks that men are automatically the heads of the household by virtue of being men.

The only way to tackle that problem is to move away from that mentality, but that's obviously easier said than done.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 3, 2012 | 7:10 p.m.

JonH; The effort should not just be against neanderthals.

Metrosexual/feminized is just as bad.

Neither promotes a strong, nuclear family with each member contributing their strengths and helping with each other's weaknesses.

I think coercive behavior changes do not work. Gov't actions to force a change in learned human behavior is ineffective. It just goes underground.

As someone posted above: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." - Dale Carnegie".

Works both ways.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 3, 2012 | 8:18 p.m.

Colonel, those stop whining comments sound suspiciously like something my spouse may have written you.

Jonathan, at the rate of 3,000 unborn babies being killed every single day of the year for 38 years, I submit that it doesn't matter whether you are against killing the unborn or for having a choice in killing unborn babies....it's still a war on unborn babies. With real casualties.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 3, 2012 | 9:23 p.m.

JonH. has the problem that anyone over 50 years of age is able to detect. The proof of his statements are always those established after year 1960 (my opinion, but seems solid from his and comments from other leftists, around here.) It seems that any reference to years prior are those are when our problems were created. Not so, of course, but being taught that, he is allowed to write against every issue Republicans are trying to preserve, then proclaim, his comments are not about Republicans!

Your attempt to justify your comments here are numerous and full of holes. The one that reaches out, is "He made vague references to "the nuclear family," but the links he provided suggest he's one of those people who thinks that men are automatically the heads of the household by virtue of being men.

The only way to tackle that problem is to move away from that mentality, but that's obviously easier said than done."

Your last sentence, sorry, is one of ignorance. Jon, since 1960, "move away from that mentality" is exactly what we have done! The killings, crime, and irresponsibility from those of your age and younger is evidence of what has come of your recommended change of "mentality".

If you'd like further dissection of your comments, just say so.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 3, 2012 | 9:59 p.m.

Frank, it has been my experience that 95% of households are run by women. Men bring home the money and turn it over to the wife who pays the bills and makes the decisions - with a little input from the men. I would venture that the vast majority of men can completely relate to The Man Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7Y0I91ru...

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 3, 2012 | 10:24 p.m.

Frank, you may recall about 4 weeks ago on the posts regarding the Trayvon Martin story, I did a comparison to the shooting of the unarmed anglo/hispanic male by the black man in Phoenix, and how no weapon was found at the scene. Tim Dance produced one left wing story that said "It's unclear if investigators found a weapon at the scene." When I challenged him to look at more than one source (giving him an opportunity to research and retract his error) he just fired back that if I had proof to post it. So I proceeded to supply news stories from ABC, CBS, and FOX, all stating no weapon was found.

Mr. Dance not only did not come back and say he erred, I haven't seen a post from him since on any of the Colonel's columns - nor of the other columnists.

When faced with facts clearly exposing the fallacy of their positions, liberals just seem to be unable to deal with them.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 4, 2012 | 2:54 a.m.

Don, the sensationalist language doesn't help your case. This war you speak of is a fantasy, and it's funny that this fantasy helps the "war on women" so many of you are decrying.

It's pretty convenient that you get to whine about the horrors of abortion when it's a problem you will never have to face yourself, isn't it? Nevermind that the god you invoke to speak against abortion is the most prolific abortionist out there. It is estimated that the percentage of pregnancies that end in miscarriage range anywhere between 25% to 50%, a figure obviously hard to come by since so many miscarriages occur early during the pregnancy, before the woman even knew she was pregnant.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 4, 2012 | 3:08 a.m.

And Michael, I never said anything about coercing anyone into any views. It wouldn't have sped up the process at all to legislate against claims that epilepsy is the result of demonic posession. Getting rid of ignorance simply takes time; all we can do to help speed up the process is to put the information out there and hope it gets through.

Also, I'd appreciate a definition of "metrosexual/feminized." Seems like we're invoking genetics now, a subject on which plenty of research has been done and for which we should be able to find plenty of supporting evidence. Let's remember that our defining trait was never physical strength, but rather intelligence. The reason why we haven't succumbed to bears and mammoths isn't because we were able to beat 'em to death in a fist fight; we beat them by outsmarting them.

I'm curious as to what are the defining strengths and weaknesses of men and women such that "metrosexuality" is bad. Are we physically stronger than women? Yes, but that's absolutely irrelevant in this day and age in terms of our survival as a species. What can't a "metrosexual" man contribute in a family setting that a non-metrosexual can?

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt May 4, 2012 | 3:14 a.m.

Speaking of fantasies, frank unsurprisingly invokes the "good old days"/nostalgia argument. Numbers don't lie: We are better off today than we have ever been, and the tendency has always been toward improvement. Even the most impoverished nations out there are doing way better than they would have at any point in the past.

Hell, the average life span has DOUBLED in a matter of 100 years. So please, point me to this fictitious magical time when we were just all so much better off than we are now. References to specific years and the corresponding statistics would certainly help.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 4, 2012 | 4:16 a.m.

JonH: And Michael, I never said anything about coercing anyone into any views.
____________________

I never said you did. I was commenting on how folks wish to change behavior by legislating it...things like hiring practices, pay practices, discrimination, and the like. These laws can superficially work and you can get measurable results, but the underlying beliefs have not changed and, if possible, difficult-to-discern "methods" are devised.
________________________

JonH: Also, I'd appreciate a definition of "metrosexual/feminized."

Why? Your third paragraph indicates quite clearly that you know the definitions, and all indications are that they match mine. Nice try, tho.
________________________

I've seen the results of families whose males have lost their antlers. Biology cannot be ignored. Males behave one way, and females behave another. There is considerable overlap, to be sure, but biological differences exist and will persist in spite of arguments or wishes to the contrary. Most men have only a thin veneer of civilized behavior put there by women...of this I am convinced...and it's important for men to recognize this. The real war on women is conducted by their males, and those males are often chosen unwisely.

All-else is second place, and I'm reluctant to place public emphasis and effort on second place when virtually no money or effort is spent on first place. That's "loser" policy.

That's all for now with unfinished and disorganized thoughts/comments. I'm up because I'm headed to OccupyTurkeyCamp. There may be violence. And table fare. I hope. So far, gobblers have only given me the middle claw.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 4, 2012 | 5:16 a.m.

Jonathan writes: Nevermind that the god you invoke to speak against abortion is the most prolific abortionist out there.

While Jonathan quotes a NY Times article from 1988, the numbers appear to still be valid. However Jonathan, if you are going to use that analogy, EVERYTHING is God's fault.
However, a naturally occuring miscarriage is not comparable to the deliberate, human induced murder of an unborn child. To try and compare the two or use miscarriages as a justification for abortion is utter nonsense.

Once conception occurs, every genetic trait that will make up that unique person is there. It's human life. When you get to be God, you can make the decisions on who does and does not have a miscarriage.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 4, 2012 | 8:35 a.m.

JonH - Do you believe, You surprised Anyone by dancing around, but never touching my premise? Your dance ("two step" seems to work.), produced another ignorant statement.

"Even the most impoverished nations out there are doing way better than they would have at any point in the past."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/201...
These people of the EU are in their streets constantly, protesting their *Governments*, the imminent collapse of which, has the rest of the world in financial turmoil. Are they thinking, "yeah, but I'm better off now than I was during those good old days? The date you demand, as I have referenced often is 1960, when rise of liberalism began in this country.

Had you ever thought of blog posting only during daylight hours? I wonder if getting out of the holes you dig and corners you paint yourself into are the actual causes of nighttime sleeplessness of which you have complained.

As D' Speaker, Jim Wright, would say "we're only trying to hep you!"

(Report Comment)
Brian Trenhaile May 4, 2012 | 9:01 a.m.

"The date you demand, as I have referenced often is 1960, when rise of liberalism began in this country."

Damn those pesky Civil Rights movements during the 60's. If it weren't for those liberal movements, just think how well off we'd be today!

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 4, 2012 | 11:13 a.m.

"If it weren't for those liberal movements, just think how well off we'd be today!"

"reminds us today of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s meeting with Vice President Richard Nixon in 1957. They met on Capitol Hill for a discussion of ways to overcome Democrat opposition to the Republican civil rights agenda.
That’s something that you won’t hear about today from the liberal media."

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/...

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/15/mart...

What liberal movements?

(Report Comment)
Tony Black May 4, 2012 | 11:36 a.m.

If fetuses are people, would you support a tax deduction on an unborn child? Just askin'

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 4, 2012 | 12:48 p.m.

T. Black - If you are addressing me,why not? It could cost our government only one more $1000. max deduction. Easy enough for them to borrow or print.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 4, 2012 | 12:55 p.m.

Tony, no I would not support a tax deduction for an unborn child. While the U.S. Constitution guarantees a human life cannot be legally taken without due process of law, there is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to a tax deduction.

Fair enough?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 4, 2012 | 12:56 p.m.

By the way Jonathan, I am pro choice. Let the baby decide.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 4, 2012 | 1:08 p.m.

Frank, let's see:

Emancipation Proclamation - Republican
Women's right to vote - Republican
Voting Rights Act - See the vote below

Senate: 77–19
Democrats: 47–17 (73%-27%)
Republicans: 30–2 (94%-6%)

House: 333–85
Democrats: 221–61 (78%-22%)
Republicans: 112–24 (82%-18%)

(Report Comment)
Tracy Greever-Rice May 4, 2012 | 2:24 p.m.

Alright, while the actual editorial is not really worth dignifying with response, I must mention that to date there are 80+ comments - none of which appear to be from women, at least women with conventional female names.

With beautiful irony, this says pretty everything that needs to be said about the Colonel's position on the "fairer sex", which, by the way, refers to the other "fairer".

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 4, 2012 | 3:09 p.m.

Tracy: "none of which appear to be from women, at least women with conventional female names."
_______________

Already mentioned....twice.....by men.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 4, 2012 | 3:24 p.m.

Tracy G. - "while the actual editorial is not really worth dignifying with response, I must mention that to date there are 80+ comments - none of which appear to be from women, at least women with conventional female names."

Could this be because the piece is about a Democrat propaganda campaign using one of their "protected groups" as subject and not women per se?

(Report Comment)
Tracy Greever-Rice May 4, 2012 | 4:56 p.m.

Michael, and...

Frank, Sort of... It's more likely because it's a piece by the Republican propaganda campaign about the Democrat propaganda campaign.

And I'm so busy not working as many hours as men that I have to eat all my bon bons and paint my nails instead of worrying my pretty little head with men's big ideas.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 4, 2012 | 5:02 p.m.

Tracy: Just wanted you to know we got your back.

(Report Comment)
Joy Mayer May 4, 2012 | 5:43 p.m.

We're up to 87 comments, which puts this article in eighth place on the list of most-commented since January. Of the seven stories with more comments, only two were NOT columns by Col. Miller.

There's a lot of interesting discussion here, and I thank you for your civility.

On the topic of the gender issue: The lack of women is striking, isn't it? It's a phenomenon seen across news site commenting, and also in other online collaborative projects (like Wikipedia). I actually have a staff member doing some research on the issue, and I'll report back what we learn.

Joy Mayer,
director of community outreach,
Columbia Missourian

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 4, 2012 | 6:08 p.m.

Joy - Perhaps You should be congratulated. 87 comments and it ain't blue yet?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 4, 2012 | 6:34 p.m.

Tracy, nobody has limited the open expression of opinion by women on this article - nor of any other by this journal. Actually, as Ms. Mayer alludes to, there is seldom comment by women on any of the Colonel's columns. Just because you do not agree does not make the Colonel's opinions any less valid. I do not view the lack of women's opinions as any kind of statement. For the last three years I have regularly viewed commentary on news stories on Yahoo News. Comments can range anywhere from 100 to over 22,000. I would say at least a third of them are from women.

My question to Joy is, what is the level of women's responses to stories by other columnists, particularly Rose Nolen's or Amanda Koellner's? How do women's posts for those columnists compare to male responses? I would also challenge Joy to conduct a survey on basic civics and current history questions with men and women at MU. It would be interesting to see how well informed they are. Then ask which of them take time to read the local columnists here. I would venture to guess that regardless of which side of the isle they are on, those take the time to post comments here are much better informed than most.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 4, 2012 | 6:42 p.m.

Tracy, were you going to make an opinion of the crux of Colonel Miller's column? I didn't really see any thoughtful analysis on it. Please note though, that none of the commentators on this article in any way derided the ability or capabilities of women. Why you posted you comment on bon bons, painting your nails, and worrying your pretty little head (we'll have to take your word for that) on men's big ideas is beyond me. Tens of millions of women share the same opinion as the Colonel Miller. I like to call those women adults.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 4, 2012 | 6:44 p.m.

Spell check should be my friend!! I'll work on it.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 4, 2012 | 6:52 p.m.

Rose Nolen's column this week on the drain of Social Security funds was thoughtful and had many important questions. Commentary? Zero. Tracy, perhaps you should give some input there.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 4, 2012 | 8:24 p.m.

Don: Rose's commentary on SS generated ca. 16 comments.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 4, 2012 | 8:42 p.m.

Joy,
Much obliged for the kind words in testimonial. As to the commentary on the "War on Women," it is my not so humble opinion that real women believe as I do--that there is no war and, if there was a war, women are more than able to take care of themselves. They did not become "The Deadlier of the Species" by accident. For example, I wear the pants in my family but, she tells me which ones to don.

Men will never never be a match for real women.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 5, 2012 | 2:56 a.m.

Thanks Michael. For some reason when I went to her op/ed, no comments were there.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith May 5, 2012 | 4:57 a.m.

@ Don Milsop:

For the record, and I think Michael will agree with me, those roughly 16 comments were nearly 16 more than Rose's articles usually receive.:)

As I've commented before, at its inception in 1935 Social Security was actuarilly sound: the number of active workers was much higher than those who were retired and the mean life span of recipients at that time wasn't many years past 65. Over the years three things have happened. First life spans have lengthened. Secondly, the ratio of working Americans to those retired has changed significantly. Third, people who are not of retirement age have been added to the program. I'm not saying that in itself is a bad thing, but when you do something like that you need to fund it.

In 1935 Social Security was NOT a Ponzi scheme; in 2012 it's still not a Ponzi scheme, but only because Congress and the courts say it's not a Ponzi scheme.

The Social Security mess is a "poster boy" for what's wrong with our federal government, which under both political parties seems incapable of facing reality.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith May 5, 2012 | 5:49 a.m.

J. Karl:

It's actually spelled "Metallurgy." Our students for eons have had the problem of attempting to spell it with only one "l." They aren't allowed to graduate until they can spell it correctly. Some have spent years in the process. :)

Students at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (founded 1824, the oldest technical institute in the united states) have considerable problems with correctly spelling the full name of their school, located in Troy, NY. "RPI" usually appears as a substitute. I have a friend who is an emeritus RPI professor and one of the world's experts on welding (all methods). He sometimes jets around the world, either giving advice or appearing as an expert witness.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 5, 2012 | 8:45 a.m.

Don Milsop: Thanks Michael. For some reason when I went to her op/ed, no comments were there.
__________________

Don, that's been happening to me a lot. I refresh an article to see "what's new?" and all the comments have disappeared. I can only get them back by returning to the Missourian home page, then click the article again. I thought I was the only one with the problem.

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin May 5, 2012 | 9:04 a.m.

Before the Missourian Men's Poster Club starts downing Rose Nolen's comments, please note that the umpteen comments here are from about the same 8-10 guys who leave remarks on virtually all Missourian stories, regardless the subject matter, but have a particular affinity for the Colonel.

Tracy did a brave thing wading into the thicket, and new posters who might want to comment on Nolen may feel like they're invading the club (she may appeal to a more female demographic, for instance).

The Missourian does seem to have a cookie or caching bug problem that will occasionally make it appear as if all comments are deleted. It's happened to me several times. Not sure if it's a problem with all browsers.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 5, 2012 | 9:32 a.m.

Mike Martin: Actually, there have been 23 male commenters (not 8-10) on this article, and 2 women.

'Tis true, tho, we do comment...a lot...on many different stories. I guess we're interested in many topics. Either that, or we need to get a life.

Hopefully the Missourian doesn't mind although I'm betting they wish there were more folks posting.

Interesting, tho, you mention "appeal to a more female demographic". Inherent in those words is the notion there indeed are differences....a notion many would decry.

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin May 5, 2012 | 9:54 a.m.

But far and away, the bulk of the comments come from the same 8-10 guys (not counting any possible sock puppets).

From what you're saying, it may be time for an intervention. This educational video about posting on newspaper websites, from that other newspaper in town, provides a number of suggestions on how to break the habit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erQgGi7gD...

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 5, 2012 | 11:38 a.m.

M. Martin - Tracy posted slander, "while the actual editorial is not really worth dignifying with response", and ridiculed the conservative side of the conversation. You applaud her for "a brave thing wading into the thicket". You write about "downing Rose Nolen's comments." Those posts, as are most often, entreaties for more factual truth in Ms. Nolen's columns. This, like it or not, is what, imo 75% of the posts here and across our country are about. We have the lie of socialism in position to overwhelm us. This has produced a line between conservatives and liberals. Call this one, man v woman if you wish, but basically these discussions are C v L and until the threat is removed, I intend to defend my side, as honestly as possible. I generally write at one poster at a time and have no illusion that I'll change that view. I hope that those readers that never post will be influenced by mine.

I am sure you hope for the same result from yours. Btw, on a scale of 1 thru 8 posters where would you place yourself?

(Report Comment)
Tracy Greever-Rice May 5, 2012 | 12:04 p.m.

Phew, I'm so glad Frank posted. I was almost feeling obligated to respond to Don's entreaty. Though I'm not sure how exactly one "slanders" something that is wholly fact-free.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 5, 2012 | 2:51 p.m.

Hmmm--so an opinion column is fact-free until Ms Tracy Greevy-Rice deems otherwise? Ms Greevy-Rice, your "while the actual editorial is not really worth dignifying with response" places you in the same category as Mr Steenburger, cute but substanceless criticisms, perhaps to see your name in print. As I reminded Mr Steenburger, most of my critics possess the intellectual moxie to point out specific areas of disagreement. I am certain the other contributors would be happy if you were to share them. And, if the editorial itself is "not worthy dignifying with a response" why did you find it necessary to respond?

Have a nice day.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 5, 2012 | 3:00 p.m.

Ellis,

As for my spelling of "metallurgy" without the requisite number of L's, I could offer that I am conserving energy--kinda like making sure my tires are maintained at the recommended air pressure, driving no more than 55 MPH or turning off all lights in celebration of "Earth Hour." Unfortunately, I must admit I just misspelled it. Owning up to one's mistakes is the conservative way.

(Report Comment)
Ida Fogle May 5, 2012 | 3:41 p.m.

I'm curious, Mr. Miller, whether you would ever classify a comment by a male as "cute?"

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro May 5, 2012 | 4:39 p.m.

Everything old is new again:
("By Rita Putatunda
So, Here are Some of the Main Advantages of the Nuclear Family:")
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/advantage...

("The Impact of Feminism on the Family:
Gloria Steinem sounded the war cry, "We don't just want to destroy capitalism," she said, "we want to tear down the whole f____ patriarchy."

As the women's movement turned fanatical and ugly in the 1960s and 70s the focus began to shift from reform and equal opportunity. The feminist leaders - humorless, militant, pugnacious, and angry with their particular lot in life, launched programs that were anti-God, anti-capitalism, anti-family, anti-birth, anti-heterosexual and fostered a virulent hatred of anything having to do with males. They no longer wanted to equalize the status of women, but instead wanted to irreversibly alienate women from men and vice versa.")
http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/...

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 5, 2012 | 5:18 p.m.

Ms Fogle,

I believe Mr Steenburger, whose remarks were described along with those of Ms Greevy-Rice as "cute" is male. And, yes, I have classified other male's efforts at being cute as cute. It is much easier to criticize than to create.

(Report Comment)
Brendon Steenbergen May 5, 2012 | 6:32 p.m.

My comments were certainly cuter than I am. I also busy myself criticizing the creations my lab has littered my lawn with. I place his creativity and exertion on par with some of the opinions found on this forum. Yes, I am indeed the first here to raise the caliber of dialogue to doo-doo references....at least intentionally.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 5, 2012 | 7:05 p.m.

I'm still waiting for a woman to post a comment on this column which at least indicates reasoned analysis of the issue. Joy's comments dealt with gender response identification and total reader response. In her position it wouldn't be appropriate to take a stance one way or the other unless it was her own op/ed. Portraying women as unable to take care of themselves or their children, or that they are in constant need or want of government assistance is just a Democrat way of trying to curry votes. Were that true, it would say that American women didn't agree with those things that made America great. I don't believe that for one minute. There's no personal pride in that.

Ida - Tracy, could you please step up to the plate and make a reasoned, point by point review of your position on what the column says. If you don't you're just wasting space.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 5, 2012 | 7:17 p.m.

Tracy posts: "Though I'm not sure how exactly one "slanders" something that is wholly fact-free."

Yet Tracy provides not a single instance of errors in fact, nor any source for her opinion. If you are going to be considered credible Tracy, at least provide something we can research. A couple of weeks ago when Tim Dance challenged me, I provided three different major news sources to prove my point.

Are you no less capable of doing the same?

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 5, 2012 | 10:34 p.m.

Cute or not, I think Ray's link is worth advertising again.

"They no longer wanted to equalize the status of women, but instead wanted to irreversibly alienate women from men and vice versa.")
http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/......

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 5, 2012 | 10:55 p.m.

Either God or the Missourian sometimes serve us in strange ways. Try this one.

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/... or read
Rays post.

(Report Comment)
Brian Trenhaile May 6, 2012 | 12:56 a.m.

I hope the article from jeremiahproject.com was a joke.

Just a few of the ridiculous statements from the site:

"How can the Christian consent to the thieves (U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve, and International Banks).."

"How can the Christian continue to accept counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) in violation of Leviticus 19:35-36 and Deuteronomy 25:13 -16.."

At the bottom of the page was an advertisement for Bank of America. Irony?

They also have an entire section dedicated to the damning of Catholics...So there goes about half of the Christian population. They have a section titled "Rapture" as well. I didn't read it as I was busy beating my head against a wall but I'm sure it was truly enlightening.

And then states the following: "To accomplish their goals, terrorist organizations such as the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, the National Education Association". They go on to mention "witchcraft" as well.

But hey, what war on women?

I find it a bit humorous and intriguing knowing people are this crazy.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith May 6, 2012 | 4:50 a.m.

@ J. Karl:

No problem with "Metallurgy," we just can't resist taking advantage of a teaching moment.

Mostly we've been busy seeing that Columbia media, print and TV, get the current name of our operation correct. :)

BTW, you can go to Walmart and buy a road atlas that, for Missouri, shows the correct current name of our campus, but the official MODOT road map, 2010-2012, does not. Based on how long it took for the official state road map to change "Park College" to "Park University" (shown on the Kansas City insert portion of the map) we still have six (!) more years to go.

Ain't Missouri wonderful? Come to think of it we only had Metallurgy" in the official title of the campus for 93 years; that's not nearly long enough for folks elsewhere in our fair state to learn to spell it correctly.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 6, 2012 | 7:14 a.m.

Brian posts: "Just a few of the ridiculous statements from the site"

Here are Just a few of the ridiculous statements from President Obama and Democrats:

Obama Declares Plan to Cut Deficit in Half
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jJvkkNmR...

Pelosi says you have to pass the bill to find out what's in the bill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5...

Harry Reid said, “We have in northern Nevada every January a cowboy poetry festival. Had that program not been around, the tens of thousands of people who come there every year would not exist.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsDwEUJPl...

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 6, 2012 | 7:38 a.m.

What were the other reasons for our high unemployment? Kiosks, ATMs, earthquakes, tsunamis, shovel ready jobs that weren't there, big oil, the Arab Spring....everything and everybody except his own failed policies of over taxation, over regulation, and over spending. And I do blame all parties, but he's taken no action to correct any of this, and at least the GOP is trying. However, Harry Reid is sitting at least 18 bills passed out of the house that would help the economy and businesses:

http://www.offthegridnews.com/2012/01/06......

The Democrats have not passed a single budget in the senate in three years, even when they held a super majority. And that's simply because they know there are not enough Dems to vote for the bill and they don't want to suffer that kind of embarrassment. This clearly shows Obama and the Dems are not serious about doing any cutting. As we have seen from the recent scandals and anti business attitude of this administration, nothing can change until we clear the liberals out of both parties from congress. Obama's executive branch has beefed up regulators, and vastly cut oversight personnel. We need only go back to that statement from the Declaration of Independence to see that it's not the first time for this. Included in the grievances stated in the Declaration was this:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 6, 2012 | 7:58 a.m.

Tracy posted: "Phew, I'm so glad Frank posted. I was almost feeling obligated to respond to Don's."

Tracy, of course you are not obligated to respond. If you have no logical basis for your post, we wouldn't expect you to. And of course those responding to Colonel Miller's column are not obligated to consider your position as having merit any more than voters in an election when they value one candidate's position over another.

(Report Comment)
Gary Straub May 6, 2012 | 10:39 a.m.

"real women"...are you kidding me? Some how or another you guys have been thinking that being on the right does not mean you favor the right side of the aisle but that since you are on the right you are right. Are there no lows you find too far down the hole to pull yourself out? You have made your bigoted, racist ideology very clear but until now your sexist feelings have been obscured.

I quit reading this thread several days ago after my last post. I must apologize that I did use a pull quote and somehow the by-line was omitted. It was totally unintentional, and as a member of Move-On since it's inception I would never consider hiding it as a source.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking May 6, 2012 | 2:33 p.m.

Don Milsop wrote:

"What were the other reasons for our high unemployment?"

Um, a severe recession?

Believe it or not, taxation and spending policies don't affect the economy very much, and a lot of government spending is good for the economy (defense spending is a biggie here, but government spending trickles down into local economies anywhere it happens. Ask anyone near a military base or other large government facility).

In the 50's, top tax rates approached 90%, and the economy roared compared to today. When will you guys get that it's not taxes that control the economy?

And what does this have to do with the "war on women"?

DK

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 6, 2012 | 2:55 p.m.

Mark: When will you guys get that it's not taxes that control the economy?
__________________________

Has to be a break point somewhere. Otherwise, why not send ALL income of ALL forms to the gov't? Are you saying such a thing would, or would not, control the economy?

Perhaps your statement was a mite too general, but it does require further explanation whatever the case.

PS: How many deductibles were available when the top tax rate was 90%? How many folks paid that top amount? Do you know?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 6, 2012 | 3:00 p.m.

Mark, defense spending often leads to other research and development that spawns new products, both high and low tech. Additionally, defense is actually provided for in the U.S. Constitution. If the founding fathers had known how the term "general welfare" would be twisted, they would never have included such a clause.

In 1794 congress appropriated $15,000 for French refugees who fled from insurrection in Haiti. James Madison wrote disapprovingly, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 6, 2012 | 3:55 p.m.

Mark, let's look at what President Reagan inherited in 1981:

Inflation in December, 1979: 12.61%
Inflation in December, 1980: 12.65%
Inflation in December, 1983: 3.27%
Inflation in December, 1986: 1.28%

30 yr fixed mortgage Jan, 80: 11.78%
30 yr fixed mortgage Jan, 82: 15.37%
30 yr fixed mortgage Jan 89: 9.31%

Prime rate Dec 1980: 21.5%
Prime rate Dec 1983: 11.0%
Prime rate Dec 1987: 8.5%

Unemployment in December, 1980: 7.5%
Unemployment in November, 1984: 7.2%
Unemployment in December, 1988: 5.3%

Okay, what did Obama inherit?

Inflation in December, 2008: 1.70%
Unemployment in Jan, 2009: 7.6%
Prime rate Jan, 2009: 3.25%
30 yr fixed mortgage Jan, 09: 5.01%

President Obama inherited a far better economy than did President Reagan. In Jan, 1981, interest and inflation rates were crippling to businesses, and mortgages rates were through the roof. President Obama has not had to contend with any of that. The incredibly low interest rates we have now should have business exploding. It's not. The economy is so anemic that printing and pumping a trillion dollars into the markets has had extremely negligible affect.

Mark, Reagan's drop in unemployment was from people actually going back to work, and not from dropping out of the work force. President Bush 43's average work force employment was 66.15%. So far this year, President Obama's is 63.75. Obama's not counting that 2.4% of the work force that has just dropped out. If you did, the unemployment rate would not be 8.1%. It would be 10.5%.

So please those of you on the left, don't give us any nonsense about what Pres. Obama inherited. Reagan came into a far worse situation. He fixed it by giving us our money, not turning us upside down and seeing what he could shake out of us, and not by massive new govt programs.

Tell you what Mark. You send in 90% of what you make, and see if your economy improves.
Oh Tracy, FYI, this is what a researched, informed post looks like.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 6, 2012 | 4:10 p.m.

Mark F. - "Believe it or not, taxation and spending policies don't affect the economy very much, and a lot of government spending is good for the economy (defense spending is a biggie here, but government spending trickles down into local economies"

Are you really a Ripley? Why do you along with our entire left persist with the view that Spending is the only way to improve an economy? Is it because the proposal always includes an amount to be distributed among our "middle class and poor, while the billions are confiscated by these rich, whom we are "soaking"? You never mention (tho you must know) that while the lower income spends their stipend, the wealthy *Invest it*. This is usually referred to as "across the board tax cuts" and creates the growth that has improved the economy every time it has been tried. You have plenty of company with your myth. No Democrat will ever discuss "investment" except in the context of how They, in gov't, will spend Our money.

Your next post will read like you have never heard of this information, but, please read it.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...

Has nothing to do with War on Women, except both are lies perpetuated by the left in this country.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote May 6, 2012 | 11:14 p.m.

@Don Milsop

First this:
http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834...
("No administration has reduced aggregate government spending as a precentage of GDP as much as Obama's in forty years.)
Note that refers to state, local and federal spending.

2nd,
The 1981 recession was due to contractionary monetary policy. That is the Fed raised interest rates to combat inflation. High interest rates had a deleterious effect on GDP. By lowering the interest rate they were able to goose the economy and implement the recovery.
In contrast, the current recession is due in no small part to the reckless deeds of the financial sector. In response the Fed continuously lowered interest rates, but to no avail. By the time Obama assumed office, the US was in a liquidity trap. That is, interest rates were so low, they could not be cut further to jump-start the economy. Federal T-Bills recently were sold at a negative rate of return if you include inflation!
If you can't lower interest rates because you are at the zero bound, and stimulus spending (once embraced by Republicans but now curiously deemed ineffectual by the right) is a no go, what would you have done to goose the economy? Before you say tax cuts, the stimulus included the largest 2 year reduction in tax rates ever. Also reducing regulatory uncertainty is not a compelling response.
Do your comments ever comport with reality, or is demonstrably untrue hyperbole your only trick?

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote May 6, 2012 | 11:31 p.m.

@Don,

Here's Obama vs. Reagan on government spending:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03...

Taking into account that tax rates under obama are far lower than what they were under Reagan, can you explain this difference in government spending (much higher under Reagan) in the context of your previous post where you stated:

"He (Reagan) fixed it by giving us our money, not turning us upside down and seeing what he could shake out of us, and not by massive new govt programs."

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 7, 2012 | 3:06 a.m.

Christopher Foote posts: "The 1981 recession was due to contractionary monetary policy. That is the Fed raised interest rates to combat inflation. High interest rates had a deleterious effect on GDP. By lowering the interest rate they were able to goose the economy and implement the recovery."

Christopher, take another look at that information above. The high interest rates and high inflation rates are in the last two years of Carter's administration. President Obama inherited low interest and low inflation. Those make dealing with unemployment far easier to deal with...or at least they should.

You also fail to give any mention to how Bush officials warned about Fannie and Freddie, and how Dodd and Frank said oh, there was no problem. As much as it pained me, I did look at the Krugman post you gave. Did you bother to notice in the commentary how many astute readers tore apart Mr. Krugman's article as pure balderdash. Krugman's info was based on leaving out a whole host of factors that would have wildly swayed the results of those charts. But we expect no less from Krugman. The lib media has still not adjusted to the fact that when they present bovine feces to the public, they will be caught immediately.

So lets take so real data on federal spending as a percent of GDP, not subjective:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spen...

Scroll down about halfway to get to the Govt spending as a % of GDP chart.

1980 33.72%
1982 36.25%
1984 35.71%
1988 34.73%
2000 32.56%
2002 34.74%
2004 34.86%
2006 35.12%
2008 37.14%
2009 42.63%
2010 40.75%
2011 40.03%

Below is from a Feb, 2012 CBO report, corrected, for 2011 results:

Recently, the federal government has been recording budget deficits that are the largest as a share of the economy since 1945. Consequently, the amount of federal debt held by the public has surged. At the end of 2008, that debt equaled 40 percent of the nation's annual economic output (a little above the 40-year average of 37 percent). Since then, the figure has shot upward: By the end of this year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects, federal debt will reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—the highest percentage since shortly after World War II. The sharp rise in debt stems partly from lower tax revenues and higher federal spending related to the recent severe recession. However, the growing debt also reflects an imbalance between spending and revenues that predated the recession.

Christopher, you can try and spin the numbers with half-truths and incomplete information. The net result of lack of performance, incredible deficits, and soaring debt add up to one thing: Incompetence on the part of this administration. Thank God November is coming.

(Report Comment)
Brendon Steenbergen May 7, 2012 | 9:11 a.m.

I think this thread is played out. Time for a new wacky J.Karl article to obsess over.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote May 7, 2012 | 9:41 a.m.

Actually Don, Government Expenditures includes all government spending except transfer payments (social security and medicare). Once again your post, "Krugman's info was based on leaving out a whole host of factors that would have wildly swayed the results of those charts..." is demonstrably not true. Here's the same data from the FRED: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/ser...
What data is missing that "wildly swayed the results"?
A significant factor affecting the unemployment rate is the steep decline in public sector jobs. Here's Obama (-600,000 public sector jobs) vs. Bush (+900,000 over the same time frame):
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/0...
Enough with the profligate spending meme, it simply isn't true. Yes spending as a percent of GDP is larger under Obama than Reagan, but that is a function of a much steeper decline in GDP under Obama compared to Reagan.
I'll end with Krugman:
"Obama, far from presiding over a huge expansion of government the way the right claims, has in fact presided over unprecedented austerity, largely driven by cuts at the state and local level. And it’s therefore an amazing triumph of misinformation the way that lackluster economic performance has been interpreted as a failure of government spending."

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm May 7, 2012 | 9:47 a.m.

Don,

Your data is for all government spending not federal. It adds up federal, state, county and municipality.

Federal spending accounted for 24% of GDP, not 40%. I must say that such an obvious and glaring error on your part does not bode well for your credibility.

(Report Comment)
Joy Mayer May 7, 2012 | 10:26 a.m.

Thanks for pointing out the bug causing comments to disappear. I just experienced it myself and am alerting our IT staff. Does it ever happen on articles with just one or two comments, or only when there are many to display?

I'm happy to hear that the blue screen phenomenon has been resolved. Please do keep reporting issues like this, either in a comment or directly to me at mayerj@missouri.edu.

For those of you keeping count, we're up to 131 comments on this particular post. I'm happy to report that Col. Miller's next column is set to publish Wednesday morning, and he'll be taking on the topic of wealth.

Joy Mayer
Columbia Missourian

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 7, 2012 | 10:57 a.m.

Joy:

The blue screen thingie has NOT been resolved. This article is deep into the blue...as was your comment and soon-to-be this one. "Blue" is definitely linked to a large number of posts; JKarl does it every time and no one else comes close.

I still think JKarl is doing it....marine blue and all. Or maybe DonM....see if it traces to Hawaii. ;^)

As for dropped comments, for me it has not mattered if the article has many posts or few posts. It mainly occurs when I hit "refresh" on a called-up article, but it also happens when I open a new article.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 7, 2012 | 11:00 a.m.

JKarl opines on "wealth"?

Oh lord.

It's gonna be a new record.......

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro May 7, 2012 | 11:05 a.m.

There's a war on wealth.
Who are the perpetrators?
Who's winning?
http://www.womenofwealthmagazine.com/abo...

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro May 7, 2012 | 11:22 a.m.

The Workers International League FAQ:
http://www.socialistappeal.org/faq/femin...

(Report Comment)
Joy Mayer May 7, 2012 | 11:35 a.m.

@Michael -- thanks for the info. I appreciate it, as always.

Joy Mayer
Columbia Missourian

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 7, 2012 | 12:07 p.m.

"such an obvious and glaring error on your part does not bode well for your credibility". Some others credibility has been questioned often for a long time.

Suddenly, with no where else to turn we are now being told what government spending "is". Are we close, now, to what the definition of "is", is?

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 7, 2012 | 1:19 p.m.

"I think this thread is played out. Time for a new wacky J.Karl article to obsess over."

Yeah, Right! Truth sometimes hurts. So often, it seems, that many avoid it at all costs.

(Report Comment)
Brendon Steenbergen May 7, 2012 | 1:54 p.m.

Huh? People are droning on and on about gov't spending. Not on JCrew Miller's topic. I like how you read it as conceding some sort of defeat though. I like your moxie!

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 7, 2012 | 3:46 p.m.

Jack, your not pointing out the significant difference in the change in federal spending as a percent of GDP between Bush and Obama (and all his predecessors) does not bode well for you in displaying intellectual honesty. Mine was an honest error. Yours is an intentional deception.

Yet I'm glad you pointed out my error so that I can correct it and give it a complete context - something that you will see below that Mr. Foote neglects to do also.

This should be the link with the correct parameters:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spen...

Still, note the increase in federal spending during this administration:

2001 18.11%
2002 18.90%
2003 19.38%
2004 19.34%
2005 19.58%
2006 19.85%
2007 19.45%
2008 20.76%

2009 25.24%
2010 23.79%
2011 23.87%

As a matter of fact, when you look at the calculated risk link Christopher Foote provided, he oddly leaves out this part, and alludes to somehow the 900,000 increase under Bush and 600,000 decrease under Obama are Federal Jobs. They are not:

Public Sector Jobs Lost

A big difference between Mr. Bush's first term and Mr. Obama's presidency has been public sector employment. The public sector grew during Mr. Bush's term (up 900,000 jobs), but the public sector has declined since Obama took office (down 607,000 jobs). These job losses are at the state and local level, although the Federal government has been losing jobs over the last year.

If you look at state and local public sector hiring prior to this administration, you can see they also massively expanded their work rolls. Now they are paying the price and having to face reality. But please Mr. Foote, don't try and pin that on President's Bush or Obama in either direction. They don't hire state and local.

Here is the Federal workforce:

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTab...

You can see the data on this table shows the federal workforce is NOT shrinking through 2010, although I understand there was a slight reduction in 2011, mostly due to the letting go of the census workers.

Now let's see how the left will try to twist this.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 7, 2012 | 3:50 p.m.

This information is important. The left's war on the American economy is a war on every man, woman, and child in the nation, and many of our allies too. Their liberty, their financial well being, their religion. All are at risk with today's liberalism.

(Report Comment)
Brian Trenhaile May 7, 2012 | 4:27 p.m.

"Their liberty, their financial well being, their religion. All are at risk with today's liberalism."

Every time Frank or Don comment, I envision their words on Fox News' homepage; Big, bold, and overly sensational. And it always includes the words "Obama", "Socialism", or "Muslim" (or some variation).

I do respect the complete posts by Don though. He is, at the very least, more persuasive than Frank. I'm curious as to why the Republican controlled House is allowing these government expenditures?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 7, 2012 | 5:17 p.m.

Brian, they're not persuasive unless you first take them apart, verify their validity, and if they are true and accurate, you adjust your viewpoint. If you find they are true, and you don't adjust your viewpoint, then you are mired in an unrealistic world. As for Republicans in the House, many of us are disappointed by the number of times they have caved. That though, does not change the 18 bills that they have passed, and for which Harry Reid refuses to allow a vote:

http://www.offthegridnews.com/2012/01/06.........

Does this not concern you at all that one man is thwarting the process?

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 7, 2012 | 6:17 p.m.

"Their liberty, their financial well being, their religion. All are at risk with today's liberalism." Is a true statement, glaringly accurate to anyone dedicated to truth.

I am amazed at those knowing the truth of the last 6 years (D's took Congress 2007)that are still willing to concoct phoney "%of" statistics and statements about gov't spending in effort to make this atrocity seem reasonable while selling more of it to the rest of us.

Brian, not so amazing. He, among many, just willing to read and listen to truth then, mouthing the tired crap about Fox News. decides it is time R's (not yet in control of House for 2yrs) must be blamed for "allowing these government expenditures?" He is "mired in an unrealistic world", to say the least!

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 7, 2012 | 7:27 p.m.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Frank Christian.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 7, 2012 | 7:43 p.m.

After the election, will Obama give Vladamir Putin more leverage to arrest opposition leaders?

From Reuters today:

http://news.yahoo.com/putin-sworn-presid...

"Outside the Kremlin's high red walls, riot police prevented protests by rounding up more than 300 people, including men and women in cafes who wore white ribbons symbolizing opposition to Putin, a day after detaining more than 400 during clashes."

(Report Comment)
Brian Trenhaile May 7, 2012 | 8:21 p.m.

"decides it is time R's (not yet in control of House for 2yrs) must be blamed for "allowing these government expenditures?"

Yet the Republicans, Fox News, and I'm sure yourself were quick to blame Obama merely 6 months after (some earlier) he took office for the failing economy he was given.

And are there votes somehow "weighted" based on the number of years they have been in the House? Is there a waiting period before they can vote against a bill or budget? It's OK to lower the pedestal for a bit and admit they're caving (as Don did). Obama caves. Democrats cave. Republicans cave. It's part of politics...Some call it negotiation.

I'm sorry if I offended your main source of "news" by slamming Fox. It's frankly discrediting to you to admit you accept Fox News as truth. I know many knowledgeable Republicans that I find interesting and insightful to talk to and they too discredit Fox News. There's always that embarrassment Rush Limbaugh or Gateway Pundit as you have linked to often if you still want to hear conspiracy theories about birth certificates and the Pledge of Allegiance...Although I'm not aware of knowledgeable Republicans claiming to get their news there either.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Frank Christian." - Did I just witness an internet high-five? That's embarassing...I bet you have a secret handshake too.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 7, 2012 | 8:42 p.m.

Psst, Brian. FYI, during the first two years of the Obama administration, he had a Democrat House and a filibuster proof Democrat Senate. And they couldn't even pass a budget. That is VASTLY different from only holding the House. Again Brian, Harry Reid is sitting on 18 bills from the House that he won't even bring to the floor for a vote. The Dems hold the majority in the senate. What is Senator Reid afraid of?

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 7, 2012 | 9:29 p.m.

BT - Try to just absorb this without the liberal jazz.

"Yet the Republicans, Fox News, and I'm sure yourself were quick to blame Obama merely 6 months after (some earlier) he took office for the failing economy he was given"

I don't know anyone that has blamed BO for anything except what he has done! The first bill he signed was a determent to all small business. It gave lawyers power to disrupt business accounting while going back years to find payroll regulation fault.

Everyone caves. "It's part of politics...Some call it negotiation." You grumble about R's (they sure as hell have never voted on a D' Budget,have they?). If you won't see that they are trying to correct this mess, then you don't even know there is a mess. (I'm certain this is the case)

"It's frankly discrediting to you to admit you accept Fox News as truth". I statement of complete ignorance. I should have told you earlier, as with so many others, "don't bother me with your insults about my sources, unless you find them Wrong, then let me know. You have done just as every other liberal has done since I got into this, complained about conservative sources, not about something you heard or read, but what some other nitwit now reports about them. Did you watch MSNBC Lawrence O'Donnell, after Fluke testimony, stand in front of camera at start of his show and state: "All National advertising has now been cancelled for the Rush Limbaugh Show." A statement totally and provably False. That, in my view is an Embarrassment! "Although I'm not aware of knowledgeable Republicans claiming to get their news there either." Why would one make an impossibly stupid statement like that? He broadcasts over 600+ stations.

(Report Comment)
Brian Trenhaile May 7, 2012 | 10:20 p.m.

"Why would one make an impossibly stupid statement like that? He broadcasts over 600+ stations."

How exactly does that make what he says factual? Ever heard of the term "Sex sells"? Sensationalist media also sells. Limbaugh once said Obama "Inherited A AAA Credit Rating, An Unemployment Rate Of 5.7 Some Odd Percent." Don, who did some research, disagrees above by stating the unemployment rate was 7.6%.

I enjoyed reading you two-step around Republicans negotiating. I expected nothing short of that.Especially "they sure as hell have never voted on a D' Budget,have they?". I'm sure nowhere in the history of the United States has a Republican ever voted on a budget proposed by Democrats. Speaking of "factually untrue" and "embarrassing".

To answer your point on MSNBC: I don't argue that Lawrence embarrassed himself by saying that. It was factually untrue.

You see, I can agree with you on facts. Sensationalist claims and twisting of facts I cannot.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 7, 2012 | 11:29 p.m.

When you ask for and receive a job, you accept the responsibility of doing that job well. That responsibility includes all future events/items, and it includes anything you inherited that needs fixing.

You will be judged by whether you lived up to those responsibilities. Excuses do not fly.

And I don't care WHO you are.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 8, 2012 | 12:22 a.m.

Brian, I do note that you have not disputed that President Reagan inherited a much worse economy that did President Obama.

So what's Obama's excuse? Oh yeah, I covered that already:

Kiosks, ATMs, earthquakes, tsunamis, shovel ready jobs that weren't there, big oil, the Arab Spring, etc., etc., etc.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 8, 2012 | 8:37 a.m.

Brian T. - "Limbaugh: Obama "Inherited A AAA Credit Rating." Rush Limbaugh opened his August 8 radio show by saying of Obama: "Well, he inherited a AAA credit rating, an unemployment rate of 5.7 some-odd percent." From media matters for America.

"Limbaugh once said Obama "Inherited A AAA Credit Rating, An Unemployment Rate Of 5.7 Some Odd Percent." This came from you.

When one cuts and pastes the honest of them mention it to the reader. You have kept my record intact. I have never read a liberal complaint about conservative sources that was initially Theirs. Always from some liberal source and you give Media Matters, which was created for that purpose. When looking for the 5.7%, passed over the accusations about Chris Matthews lying about unemp figures.

We are talking about Congressional responsibility of producing a Budget each year. http://www.enotes.com/congressional-budg...

Congressional budget act of 1974 (passed by D' Congress over veto of R. Nixon, gave us baseline budgeting and easier path to deficit spending) requires Congress to produce a budget. Pelosi and Reid never even Tried. When someone wants to take your life, do you negotiate for just an arm or a leg? I don't think so.

Here are some "Sensationalist claims and twisting of facts" for you to mull.

Obama inherited an economic mess and everything he has done is opposite of what was done to correct previous recessions. He has spent, given away and stolen (not necessarily in that order) so far, 5T$ and he has done it on purpose!

(Report Comment)
Brendon Steenbergen May 8, 2012 | 9:07 a.m.

This is pretty much just a three person conversation now and has nothing to do with the article. Frank, can we agree that we're all ready for a new JCarl column? Perhaps you, Don and Brian can solve the world's problems over beers like normal people.

(Report Comment)
Brian Trenhaile May 8, 2012 | 9:33 a.m.

@ Frank

"Well, he inherited a AAA credit rating, an unemployment rate of 5.7%."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/0...

I'm sure the site is familiar to you. Perhaps you'll find what I quoted in that article. Embarrassing yourself again by jumping to the conclusion that it must have come from a liberal news source. When people are as ignorant as Rush, you don't need a liberal news source to twist his words in order to make him look like an idiot. He does that all by himself.

I do agree that we have worn out this column and have sufficiently beat a dead horse several times over. See you next time..

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 9, 2012 | 3:42 a.m.

Not including this one, 153 comments. Congrats Colonel.

(Report Comment)
David Rosman May 9, 2012 | 1:21 p.m.

MO GOP’s newest battleground against women is the Sue Shear Institute for Women in Public Life.
http://inkandvoice.com/2012/05/gops-atta...

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements