Politics is nothing but a confidence game, probably the oldest around, it predates even prostitution as one of the world's oldest crimes. And never was that more clear than in the coverage that came out of Charlotte last week where the Democratic National Convention took place.
Lilly Ledbetter achieved a feat rare for a non-elected official at a political party convention, she both lied and was used as a lie.
We're feminists. This is the first time we've mentioned Lilly Ledbetter. Because she's not about feminism. And the act passed in her name isn't about feminism.
People don't understand that and it allowed Lilly to lie and others to lie and cite Lilly as some great feminist move by Barack.
Lilly Ledbetter worked for a company which underpaid her. She made significantly less than her male counterparts. In 1998, her retirement year, she filed a lawsuit. When her case reached the Supreme Court, gender wasn't the issue. To hear her and others lie about the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is really something. Just as the Court didn't rule on gender, the bill doesn't take into account gender.
The Court ruled that the case lacked standing because it had been over 180 days since the pay decision was made and that Ledbetter should have filed a complaint with the EEOC within 180 days of the pay decision.
Writing the majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito declared:
This case calls upon us to apply established precedent in a slightly different context. We have previously held that the time for filing a charge of employment discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) begins when the discriminatory act occurs. We have explained that this rule applies to any "[d]iscrete ac[t]" of discrimination, including discrimination in "termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, [and] refusal to hire." National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan, 536 U. S. 101, 114 (2002). Because a pay-setting decision is a "discrete act," it follows that the period for filing an EEOC charge begins when the act occurs. Petitioner, having abandoned her claim under the Equal Pay Act, asks us to deviate from our prior decisions in order to permit her to assert her claim under Title VII. Petitioner also contends that discrimination in pay is different from other types of employment discrimination and thus should be governed by a different rule. But because a pay-setting decision is a discrete act that occurs at a particular point in time, these arguments must be rejected. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
What did the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act do? Passed by Congress in January 2009 and signed by Barack on the 29th of that month, the act allows the 180 day time period to kick off with each check issued as opposed to a one-time 180 days. It covers race, age, gender, disabilities, ethnic origins and other classes which may lead to discrimination.
It does nothing for pay. It does nothing to end gender discrimination. We're not saying it's bad. We would have voted on it. In 2008 and in 2009. Yeah, 2008. It didn't suddenly appear in January 2009 for the first time. And the Senate voted on it (first time) April 23, 2008. Though we would have voted for it, guess who didn't? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He was a "no" vote.
So we don't see the legislation as breakthrough or feminist. Then there's Lilly herself.
When did she find out about the pay discrimination? That detail has changed so much. Last week, in Charlotte, she told people it was "two decades" after it took place. That's had right-wing sites like OpenMarket chortling since, in her deposition, she states she first learned of it in 1992, six years before she retired and filed a lawsuit. (You can also refer to Stuart Taylor's National Journal report.) Her inability to be honest before Congress, in speeches, etc. is the other reason we have no interest in Lilly Ledbetter.
Sadly, others can't say the same. Michelle Obama declared in her speech, "That's why he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to help women get equal pay for equal work." But the "that" she's referring to is that Barack's grandmother allegedly had trouble moving up the corporate ladder and saw men she trained advanced ahead of her repeatedly. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act has nothing to do with what Michelle's talking about. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was misleading in her speech as well, "Working with President Obama, Democrats passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to strengthen the rights of women in the workplace; [. . .]" Again, it's not legislation about women, it's not legislation that changes anything other than the timeline for lawsuits. Consider it the Lawyers Get More Clients Act.
During its hey-day at the convention, only US House Rep. Rosa DeLauro provided accuracy, "The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to give victims of pay discrimination their day in court, was the first bill President Obama signed into law. Now we want to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act: real protections to ensure equal pay for equal work." Everyone else made the act out to be something it wasn't. And then, angered by the fact checkers, the Dems largely dropped it with only one exception, US House Rep. Steve Israel who declared Wednesday, "At the start, we sent the president the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, because we believe a woman should be paid the same as a man for equal work." If you believe that, you should have passed a law that did that -- the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act does not do that. You can lie all you want, it doesn't do that.
We should note that even when it was being mentioned by various politicians, it was really by female politicians. The men were usually much more interested in expressing outrage over Mitch McConnell's 2009 remark. US House Rep Steny Hoyer limply tried to thunder, "Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, said that Republicans' number one priority was the defeat of President Obama."
He was far from alone harping on McConnell and Diane Rehm was 'puzzled' by McConnell's three year old remark as well on Friday's first hour of The Diane Rehm Show (NPR), asking for clarity from The New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg.
Diane Rhem: Why the statement?
Sheryl Gay Stolberg: The statement that their number one task was to reclaim the White House?
Diane Rehm: Absolutely.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg: Well, because that's what political parties do, right?
Yes, it was that obvious and good for Sheryl Gay Stolberg for speaking the plain truth in a week when truth was in such short supply.
Along with mangled facts, Charlotte provided mangled attempts at being 'hip.' Charles Schumer probably self-embarrassed the most, signing off his Wednesday night speech with, "As we say in Brooklyn, fuhgeddaboutit." He is aware that The Sopranos ceased production in 2007, right? And that the reference would have seemed old even at the 2008 Democratic Party convention, right?
Cecile Richards was even more embarrassing, mangling basic jokes that her mother, the late Texas Governor Ann Richards, would have hit out of the park with ease. One example, "As my grandmother back in Texas would have said about any more help from Mitt Romney, 'I'm going to have to take in ironing'." Embarrassing. Cecile is not known for much more than being Ann's daughter. That's how she got her position at Planned Parenthood. She doesn't need to remind she was raised in Texas, it's obvious. But even if it's not, it doesn't belong in that joke.
"I'm going to have to take in ironing" is the punch line. You do the set-up quickly and get to that joke -- without asides, without tangents.
Television's longest running joke is Bill Moyers. PBS and NPR proper won't touch him so his new show comes to TV via American Public Television and to radio via PRI. It's called Moyers & Company and it continues the pattern of Bill Moyers Journal in that it books very few women.
Remember how we were mentioning Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his opposition (in 2008) to the Lilly Ledbetter bill? How he voted "no"? Well he came up on Moyers & Company last Friday when either the biggest fraud in the Senate or the weakest, Bernie Sanders, declared, "You know, there are Democrats, including Harry Reid, who are good friends of mine and who I work with. And there are other people in the Democratic caucus, who on many issues are no different than Republicans." Again, Reid voted "no" on Ledbetter.
But Bernie's a Socialist who depends upon the Democratic Party. His House career was nothing to be proud of. Always it was, "Bernie's going to stand up." He never did. Then in 2005, it became, "Let him run for the Senate in 2006, once he's elected there, he's got six years, not two. And he can make a real difference."
What a crock.
The 71-year-old Senator should have been able to stand up long ago. Instead he can't even tell the truth about Harry Reid's voting record. He has a lousy record for a Democrat. But you don't go after Harry Reid and get re-elected.
Bernie is listed as an "Indpendent." He's a Socialist. So which Democrat ran against him in 2006? What Democrat is running against him this year?
None and none.
It was that way with the House as well. When you're not a Democrat and you're running as an independent but the Democratic Party refuses to run someone against you, you've made a deal with the Democrats.
Bernie is not independent and it was hilarious to hear tired whore Bill Moyers spin that Bernie "belongs to no party, he's truly an independent."
Why was Bernie on?
We'll get to it.
We don't care for Bill -- check the archives -- and had hoped the article this summer would be the only one we had to write about him. But then we had to watch his lousy program Friday.
Why?
Guests included the Green Party's presidential ticket: Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala. Dr. Stein did get to talk about the Green New Deal.
Jill Stein: It is an emergency program to solve two problems: the unemployment crisis and the climate crisis. And it basically uses the model of the New Deal which got us out of the Great Depression, created a lot of jobs in the 1930s. We can do that. It directly creates jobs in our communities, and at the same time that it creates jobs it also jumpstarts the green economy that effectively spells an end to climate change and makes wars for oil obsolete. It makes national dollars available at the local level so our communities can decide what kinds of jobs they need to become sustainable. So it creates jobs for teachers. Let's hire back those hundreds of thousands of teachers who've been laid off, nurses, childcare after school, home care, elder care, violence prevention, drug abuse rehabilitation, affordable housing construction. It allows people to go down to an employment office and get a job in public works and public services. And it also provides funding for small businesses and start-ups at the community level.
Using Jill Stein as bait, Bill knew he had a chance at bringing in some new eyeballs. That's important to Moyers & Company because it continues to struggle and PBS stations aren't seeing the passion for it that there was in 2007 for Bill Moyers Journal or, in 2003, for NOW with Bill Moyers. So new eyeballs are necessary or his show's getting dropped. (It's already not being carried the way Bill Moyers Journal was or given the prime time slots the previous show received.)
More important to Moyers (who's to vain to believe he can ever fail -- vain and in denial) is re-electing Barack Obama. Electing Barack was the goal in 2008. It's why Bill Moyers became such a problem for PBS and they started getting very public about the fact that he was not part of the news division and that he did opinion and commentary for PBS, not reporting.
The thing that still stands out to PBS' news division (we spoke to members for this piece) all this time later? The 'moisty' (his term) moment. When Hillary Clinton's eyes moistened in New Hampshire. And how Bill Moyers mocked her for that ("moisty" being only one example) on air and decided to go to a clip . . . of the just out of rehab this weekend Jesse Jackson Jr. ripping her apart. Not to a clip of what happened. Bill went from his own distortion of Hillary to Junior's attack on her and Bill pretended he was being impartial. What a crock. The only thing funnier than that is Bill Moyers' ridiculous hair style. If you're self-hating and would like to wear your hair that way, just tell your stylist you want the I'm-Not-Getting-Sex-Ever-Again look.
There was Bill, pretending he hated to bring up the topic, but yammering away about Ralph Nader, turning a good portion of the interview over to Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential run. You know what would have been really great?
Jill or Cheri pointing out that, in 2008, Bill refused to interview Ralph for Bill Moyers Journal. That he refused to interview the Green Party's presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney. Bill was so into Barack that there wasn't even the pretense of interest in Nader or the Green Party.
Pretense of interest? He offered it this year and did so for one reason only: To sell Barack.
Bernie Sanders is a crap ass politician. We say that as two who've sat through the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearings. Did you know Bernie is a member of that Committee?
He is. We're not sure he knows it, but he is a member. He's a member who rarely shows up for hearings. We also regularly attend the House Veterans Affairs Committee hearings, the House and Senate Armed Services Committee hearings and the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearings and Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings. We're amazed by how often Bernie fails to show up for the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearings and can't think of anyone on another committee who misses as often as Bernie. But when he is present, Bernie makes a speech. It's a speech we usually agree with. It's just not a speech that carries any weight any more due to the fact that he never follows up on it.
Bernie was brought on to vouch for Barack to the independents.
He was there to dispel concerns from the left and right because this election will be decided by swing-voters, independents and late to the election types.
Is, Bill Moyers pretended he wanted to know, Barack a Socialist?
No, insisted Bernie. And, he insisted, he could prove it, "Can I prove he's not a socialist? Yeah. Look at his record. He is not a socialist."
If he'd left it there, he might have been more convincing; however, he kept talking.
Bernie Sanders: I mean, that's-- I mean, to be a socialist, a democratic socialist is to say, "Hey, we have 15 percent of our people unemployed today, that's the reality, or underemployed, some, close to 25 million workers. We are going to have a jobs program to put those people back to work. We're going to deal with the deficit in a progressive way."
Is that what it means to be Socialist?
Okay, then by Bernie's own definition, he's not a Socialist.
Take a look at his record for this year and last.
You may argue, "He was being practical and voting with Democrats!"
Okay, but we're not talking about his voting record, we're talking the legislation he introduced.
By the definition he gave for Socialism, Bernie himself is not a Socialist based on the bills he's introduced.
"But," you whine, "he was trying to be practical."
That's all you got? That's your fall back for everything? Bernie's a con artist from a long way back. But let's allow this lie that he was being "practical," okay? It sure as hell didn't work. Most of his bills have no co-sponsors, none of them from the last two years have passed.
If this is being "practical," it's not working for Bernie.
Barack is more unpopular than ever. His policies aren't what people hoped they'd be when they voted for him in 2008. Which is why so many lies came out of Charlotte last week. It was Three Card Monte and they all hoped to pack up and be back out on the campaign trail before the fact checkers caught on. Bill Moyers and Bernie Sanders were attempting to successfully execute the Pig in a Poke manuever -- the con where you think you're getting something of value but you're only getting something cheap and common. That is the US today, nothing but con games, no one willing to tell the truth and that was so aptly demonstrated at the DNC when they aired Jimmy Carter with a speech so embarrassing and self-serving that it appears no one bothered to transcribe it. Jimmy Carter, like Bernie, wanted you to know those 'crazy, wascal Republicans' were out to get you and that only the Democrats could save you (this con is known as the False Good Samaritan for those scoring at home). And as you listened to Carter prattle on for over four minutes, you might have forgotten that just months ago, the end of June, he penned a column for The New York Times decrying the government "abandoning its role as a champion of human rights [. . .] As a result, our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues." As June ended, Jimmy said that the US could "no longer speak with moral authority" yet last week, he told the country, "Overseas, President Obama has restored the reputation of the United States within the world community." Which is it, Jimmy?
If you'll agree trust is another form of currency, Jimmy Carter was working the Ponzi Scheme. The whole damn week was nothing but a con, a series of short-cons that are supposed to trick us long enough to get our votes.
