1 Hi. I'm a wordy asshole comment-spammer!

2 Nice. A note about a discussion of...ummm...hummers, and you attract a comment spammer. Eff'in' nice. I think that I can safely say this is one topic that Bill Clinton and I agree on. As it where.

1 Sixth paragraph: "My first professional job I came into a position vacated by a male. Somewhere along the line I found out the male who had the job prior to me was making $20,000 per year than I was." People making a case for how much they're worth professionally should learn to proofread and edit...Just my humble opinion. Or learn how to hire a proofreader and editor.

2 Aw, c'mon. It was a long post. And it's just one little eensy missing word. Also, she was overwrought . . . that never helps one's grammar or diction.

3 I was being kind. There seems to be omissions in her data that lead me to suspect she has intentionally omitted all things that would weaken her case for gender-only discrimination. For example, she states that her predecessor in her first position at the firm was male, and that he made $20,000 (more) than she did. What were his "specifics"? For example, was he at the firm for 30 years? A lot of factors could justify the pay disparity. Her statement, "(t)he fact I built this place from scratch..." doesn't make sense(given that she talked about her predecessor)unless she provides a whole lot more information. She says "she's the boss now,..."CEO? COO? She has no power to block the board's unilateral decision? Odd, that. So is the part about that underling being paid more than her to start-- in an undefined capacity at the firm, yet. Hmmm. If you don't use the power you have, you lose the right to complain. In the professions(medicine, science, and law), those possessing only x chromosomes earn, at minimum, 10% more than those contaminated with a y--other factors(ranking of college where degree was conferred, years of experience, etc.). The Ys understand that this has to do with supply and demand, meeting qualifications for federal funding, and other factors. It has been this way for at least 26 years. In my experience, those with the highest salaries--male and female--are always those who who only stick around a short time before leaving for greener pastures. And before they are discovered. With each jump, they get a minimum 10% salary kicker whether they warrant it or not. I have never seen anyone who fits this description as being deserving. Those of us who stay for thirty years are given meager annual pay raises. Meager when compared to those who "churn" their careers. If you want to be at the leading edge of salaries, you have to fight for it tooth and nail and play all the games(like getting competing job offers and being prepared to leave if the company doesn't counter-offer). If you don't, you'll have only the person in the mirror to blame. Or, maybe you have decided that other things are more important.

4 In my experience, those with the highest salaries-- Do you move around a lot Darrell? Or as you say "Those of us who stay for thirty years are given meager annual pay raises." I thought Republicans believed in opportunity, and the pursuit of the Almighty. And value competition. I am confused, are you a closet liberal, taking meager pay raises?

5 No, he's a conservative. He goes with what he knows will make him happy, rather chasing dreams that probably wouldn't. And he knows there's more to life than money. That's a damn fine thing to know, whether you hang out on the right, or the left.

1 Tempting, very tempting.

2 Too bad that you can't add a spell-checker to the comment area.

1 Happy Thanksgiving, AG!

2 Happy Thanksgiving to all...

3 So far it's been a wonderful Thanksgiving weekend. Whenever we have Thx at someone else's house, I usually cook a "follow-up" turkey here at home so we'll have leftovers in the house. This year, Sunday is the designated day. We usually have our private celebration by staying in our pajamas all day, but this time, of course, I have to figure out the timing so we can leave the bird and go to mass in the morning, then come back and celebrate. Of course, going to church is even more appropriate than staying in one's jammies. It's all good!

1 That's it. No more hugs for you unless you're celebrating a massive cash advance from your publisher or mourning the untimely demise of a popular celebrity. Hugs under other circumstances will be punishable by instant sex.

2 Apparently, lots of offenses are . . . I shall have to watch my step, so to speak.

3 Maybe it would be nice to cite the original source: http://www.thisisby.us/index.php/content/guidelines_for_platonic_friendship

4 Hmph. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable set of rules to me. They all boil down to one rule: You busted his heart already. Don't be so damn cruel after the fact.

5 Many, many years ago I stumbled on the perfect retort for when a girl I'm out with thoughtlessly (we were teenagers, thoughtlessness was mandatory) commented on another guy. "He's not my type." Delivered in a deep-pitched rumble, that line serves perfectly to return the girl's attention to the boy she's with. If only my voice had been a deep-pitched rumble when I was 17, my life in those days would have been so much better...

6 He merely drew a line. "That side of the line is the lovers section. We are not lovers. That was your choice. If you go over there, I'll assume you've changed your mind."

1 A Conservative Plan for Iraq Anyone who questions the lack of a realistic and comprehensive Iraq strategy is labeled a friend of fascism by the Republican leadership. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) recently said, “I wonder if [Democrats] are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.” Republicans are paralyzed with the fear of being thought ineffective on national security and the war. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership cannot seem to accept that—regardless of how we got there—we are in Iraq. They have not made a convincing case that an arbitrary phased or date-certain troop withdrawal is in the best long-term interest of the United States. Rather, they seem to think that withdrawal will undo the decision to have gone to war. Rubbing President Bush’s nose in Iraq’s difficulties is also a priority. This political food fight is stifling the desperately needed public discussion about a meaningful resolution to the fire fight. Most Americans know Iraq is going badly. And they know the best path lies somewhere between “stay the course” and “get out now”. Some Truths 1) Iraq is having a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites. The Kurds will certainly join, if attacked. It may not look like a civil war, because they don’t have tanks, helicopters, and infantry; but they are fighting with what they have. 2) Vast oil revenues are a significant factor behind the fighting. Yes, there are religious and cultural differences—but concerns about how the oil revenue will be split among the three groups make the problem worse. 3) Most Iraqis support partitioning Iraq into Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish regions. (Their current arrangement resulted from a pen stroke during the British occupation, not some organic alignment.) 4) Most citizens of the Middle East who support groups that kill and terrorize civilians—such as Hezbollah, Hamas, or al Qaeda—in part because of their aggressive stance against Israel and the United States, but also because they provide much needed social services, such as building schools. 5) Both Republican and Democratic administrations have spent decades doing business with the tyrants who run the Middle East in exchange for oil and cheap labor. This has been the one of the rallying calls of Bin Laden and Hezbollah—that we support tyrants who abuse people for profits. In fact, our latest trade deals with Oman and Jordan actually promote child and slave labor; it’s so bad the State Department had to issue warnings about rampant child trafficking in those countries. 6) Iran is using the instability in Iraq to enhance its political stature in the region. Leaving Iraq without a government that can stand up to Iran would be very destabilizing to the region and the world. From the U.S. perspective, this is all mostly about energy. As things stand, a serious oil supply disruption would devastate our economy, threaten our security, and jeopardize our ability to provide for our children. New Directions Success in Iraq and the Middle East in general requires us to work in three areas simultaneously: (1) fostering a more stable Middle East region, including Iraq, (2) pursuing alternative sources of oil, and (3) developing alternatives to oil. To these ends we must: 1) Insure that the oil revenues are fairly and transparently split among all three groups: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds based on population. 2) Allow each group to have a much stronger role in self government by creating three virtually-autonomous regions. Forcing a united Iraq down their throats is not working. Our military would then be there in support a solution that people want, rather than one they are resisting. 3) Become a genuine force for positive change, thus denying extremist groups much of their leverage. Driving a fair two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem should be our first priority. We should also engage in projects that both help the average Middle Easterner and Americans, such as supporting schools that are an alternative to the ones that teach hate and recruit terrorists. We should also stop participating in trade deals that promote child and slave labor by insisting on deals that include livable wages and basic labor rights. 4) Declare a Marshal Plan to end our Middle Eastern energy dependency with a compromise between exploring for new sources, reducing consumption, and developing of alternative energies. For example, we should re-establish normal relations with Cuba so we can beat China to Cuba’s off-shore oil. We should also redirect existing tax breaks for Big Oil into loan guarantees for alternative energy companies. Once we no longer need so much oil from the Middle East, we can begin winning over its people by using our oil purchases to reward positive and peaceful behavior from their leaders. This would ultimately reduce tensions and encourage prosperity in the region. We will have to live with the threat of Islamic radical terrorism forever; but these solutions are a start to reducing the threat. Both parties have to put politics aside and put together an honest and reasonable plan that the American understand.

2 How about drilling in ANWR? Building nuclear power plants?

1 Mwahhahahahahahahahaha.

2 Now the voters will get to see just how "centrist" those Democrats they put into office really are. Blame the press. If they reported the truth instead of acting as the mouth organ of the Democrat Party, voters wouldn't have to put Dems in power to show people that all they have are their stale, already-tried-and-failed poilicies. Good luck! We're all going to need it!

3 Limbaugh's probably right: it's going to get worse before it gets better. Bush's attitude seems to be: "I'll yield on anything except the War on Terror." I understand this, but a lot of damage can be done in two years in terms of job-killing stuff like minimum-wage laws and entitlements.

4 And $Trillions for global warming transfer payments to bail out the Left in Europe, without cutting temperature by a fraction of a degree.... And impeachment...Bush, Rumsfeld(for torture), Cheney--just because... And treating the war on terror as if it doesn't exist....like in Europe. Signing the International Court of Justice Agreements subjecting US citizens to foreign justice in war crimes trials...Did your granddad (father) help bomb Dresden? Fight in Vietnam? Too bad...They can't be protected now for their service. Signing the modified Geneva Conventions giving full protection to anyone in or out of uniform, regardless whether their "peeps" abide by the rules. Getting rid of the Patriot Act.... Stopping collecting the dots....And connecting them. Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research---just so drug companies can get their wish to use unique DNA lines to help in patent cases. One would think if there was a problem in the legacy lines you would just replace defective lines. Once you have cells, you can culture them forever. Once you are sure you have a representative sample of the human population, there is no need for other cell lines. Except to detect patent infringement. And...Who cares? The people have spoken! May God have mercy on us all!

5 thx 4 linx, yo.

6 u r welcum, bow! There are no links to an original rant! All the ideas are on the table; seek and ye shall find.

7 Welcome, Jon!