If you didn't catch "Meet the Press" yesterday, you missed a lively conversation about, among other things, women's votes in 2012 and the policy controversies that have put women's issues at the forefront of the political landscape.
As you'll see in this clip, around the 5:20 mark, Rachel noted the pay disparity between men and women in this country, which prompted some unexpected pushback (and incessant interruptions) from Republican strategist Alex Castellanos.
The angle to this to keep in mind is that the Republicans on the panel, Castellanos and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), simply reject the available facts on the wage gap. Despite ample evidence that shows women make less than men for the same work, Castellanos chooses to believe his own version of reality in which that's not the case.
As Rachel responded, "Wow. OK. Well, we're working from different facts." She added that this parallel perspective is critically important:
"The interruption is important, I think, because now we know, at least from both of your [Castellanos and McMorris Rodgers] perspectives, that women are not faring worst than men in the economy, that women aren't getting paid less for equal work. I think that's a serious difference in factual understanding of the world. But given that, some of us believe that women are getting paid less than men for doing the same work, there's something called the Fair Pay Act. There was a court ruling that said the statute of limitations, if you're getting paid less than a man, if you're subject to discrimination, starts before you know that discrimination is happening, effectively cutting off your recourse to the courts. You didn't know you were being discriminated against, you can't go.
"The first law passed by this administration is the Fair Pay Act to remedy that court ruling. The Mitt Romney campaign put you [McMorris Rodgers] out as a surrogate to talk -- to shore up people's feelings about this issue after they could not say whether or not Mitt Romney would've signed that bill. You're supposed to make us feel better about it. You voted against the Fair Pay Act. It's not about whether or not you have a female surrogate. It's about policy and whether or not you want to fix some of the structural discrimination that women really do face that Republicans don't believe is happening."
There's simply no shared foundation of reality, which in turn shapes the policy debate in unproductive ways. The left sees gender-based pay disparity and looks for mechanisms to address the problem; the right rejects the existence of the disparity and sees no use for the solutions because, to them, there is no problem.
For his part, Castellanos tried to move the conversation away from the substance, evidence, and fact-based policies, and instead told Rachel, "I love how passionate you are. I wish you were as right about what you're saying as you are passionate about it. I really do."
Rachel noted that his comments were condescending, adding, "My passion on this issue is actually me making a factual argument on it."
Because the conservatives on the panel are "working from different facts," the factual arguments didn't seem to matter.
Leave a Comment:
I think it is great that the republicans are so afraid of Rachel. She is quickly becoming my favorite anti-republican.
All I know is this - when I pay my rent next month, I'm only paying 77% of it. If my landlord complains, I'll refer him to Costellanos and tell him it's all in his imagination, I'm actually paying as much as any male tenant.
Ruth A Lopez- The problem is, by Castellanos's logic, your landlord will have you pay more and then tell you it's because you are in your apartment more than your male neighbors are.
Ruth, that's a genius idea. I love it.
I guess i don't see Rachel as anti-republican - i see rachel as someone who speaks from well-researched sources, willing to do the footwork to look at both sides but work from facts - perhaps that is the antithesis of republican work at this time but her sense of fairness sees the possibilities of both sides - go rachel!
Republicans are laughable. Their inability to make a cohesive argument without talking down to someone is ridiculous. They reframed the question around equal pay to remove the clarifying attributes of "for the same work", so that they could spin it to their own narrative. They're utterly ridiculous and so dishonest it's galling.
PJtastic, you noticed that, too, did you?
Great job Rachel!
I saw Meet the Press this Sunday and Rachel showed how liberals argue...they interrupt, get angry and personal. I found it particularly funny when Rachel was condescending in her remarks and then accuses him of doing the same. Also funny was her then being condescending to him when she accused him of interrupting her, when it was her that interrupted him. I saw her state over and over the fair pay discrepancy with women, but you dont hear any specifics. Like this female is an engineer at Ford and this male is an engineer at ford...the male makes this and the female makes this. You hear no specifics whatsoever...i wonder why. Its far too easy to spout off and rant not giving specifics that can be challenged. Keith Olberman had the same problem, that is why you never saw a guest on his show that disagreed with him on anything. Lets hear some more of your rants on the Zimmerman case that MSNBC has managed to destroy because of false accusations and editing of tape to insight racial division...yeah you know...no laceration on the back of the head...Lie...accusation of a racial slur....lie....accusation of him saying "hes black" when NBS edited out the 911 operator asking him the question of race that he just answered. Did rachel come back and set the record straight for her viewers? No. Is this her headline story anymore...no. Be careful with Rachel she will deceive you because thats how much real respect she has for the average american. Spout accusations...twist the truth and a good percentage of dummies will believe it.
You should take your last sentence to heart! It sums up the rest of your comment!!
Tcrguitar, you are confusing "specifics" with "anecdotes."
Ms. Maddow made two points:
To put it in terms of your argument: If your hypothetical female engineer at Ford found out her male colleague was being paid more, but she found out only after it had been going on for several years, the old law would have prevented her from making a claim. The GOP apparently thought that was the way the law should be. The Dems didn't, and Obama signed a law changing that rule.
But any single case is just that: a single case. It's an anecdote, not "specifics." The "specifics" are the methodology and findings of the research, which (if the research is valid) show what the situation is across the entire work force on average. I'm sure one could easily find many individual situations in which women and men were paid equally. Heck, in a country of 300 million people, if you looked hard enough, you might find some cases where women were paid more than men. But giving a few examples says nothing at all about the issue at hand, which is that millions of women are, on average, paid less for the same work.
By the way, you mean "incite" racial division, not "insight." Which is ironic, as the word "insight" has no place in your post.
Castellanos failed in the Meet the Press segment because he tried to claim that the choices women make in their working lives is the sole reason for their lower pay. In fact, even if you account for all factors that contribute to differences in women's earnings--number of hours worked, work setting, experience, type of occupation, education, number of children, marital status--women are still paid less than men. Examining all occupations, the Census Bureau data finds women are paid 77 cents for every dollar men make. To her credit, Rachel went on the next night on her own show to further explain the issue, and interviewed Heidi Hartmann, founder of the Institute for Women's Policy Research, who has done much work in gender gap research. See CNN's report of this organization: http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/20/women-and-equal-pay-a-scientific-view/
Ah, but Feats, in Republicanworld one anecdote is worth more than all the substantiated facts in the world combined.
Maddow was brilliant on this...i didnt know GOP talking heads could be so naive, or more to the point, could think the rest of the world believe this rhetoric without question...wow....i am shocked and saddened by the statements from the far right on this show...but Maddow was simply amazing counteracting these statements with facts and class ....thumbsup to Maddow debating these hypocrits
I think a better frame than "anti-Republican" would be "realitarian" -- a neologism to replace the clunky "member of the reality-based community." Maddow isn't particularly anti-Republican; she's just opposed to letting anyone get away with distorting or denying reality, which, in our present political climate, is a far more common behavior for Republicans and Libertarians than for any other significant faction. Communists (by which I mean actual believers in the political and economic philosophies of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, etc., not the liberals and moderates who anti-realitarian conservatives loudly mislabel "communists") also find it necessary to twist facts to fit their theories, but their ideology is all but extinct in the modern United States; the only major sources of <i>Pravda</i>-style public disinformation active in the U.S. today are the right-wing media outlets like Fox News.
Rachel is NOT "anti-republican" at all. It's not personal, she's above that type of thinking.
No doubt she has respect for those Republicans that have character & integrity.
She just doesn't agree with the Republican agenda because it's bad for our Country.
The Republicans are still using Reagan's sunny "Morning in America" answer to all perceived "problems".
Women and pay, for example: "Democrats are lying to you- honey. You're fine, and doing great; any problems you may have are due to excess Democrat regulations holding you back!"
And that's why the GOP needs to be voted out in November 2012! See, I get "wanting your own facts" - but being brain dead to REALITY - just ignorance and insulting to my intelligence!
What are you going to believe? What Republicans tell you, or your lying eyes?
This was such a bizarre exchange, you almost wanted to pinch yourself.
You just get this surreal feeling when Castellanos and Rodgers talk in that segment, like what universe did they parachute in from? There's this odd insistence that provable reality isn't provable reality for them, but unlike the candid fellow who told Ron Suskind "Reality is what we say it is," in this instance, it is like the two people on the panel, a man and a woman, are oddly unaware that they are spinning from deep within a non-reality-based universe. Kool-Aid drinkers rather than Machiavellian Manipulators, in other words.
I find it hard to believe, because most spinners on the Sunday shows are of the overt Manipulator class, not the Kool-Aid drinking class (it is a pretty sharp divide within the GOP, and the manipulators have a great deal of internal derision for their own rank and file Kool-Aid drinkers)--
Now you could argue that in no way is Alex Castellanos one of the Kool-Aid drinkers, that he comes from the Manipulator class, and I could take your point, except for what I see as a fanatical gleam in his eye, like someone convinced him (because he was predisposed to dismiss any protestations of sexism from "little" women) that provable reality in the form of data had suspect provenance, simply because it was DATA, and all data is suspect, just as ALL reporting from the NY Times is suspect to some rightwingers, for no other reason other than the fact it was published by that evil liberal rag, the New York Times (like if the Times reports on a fire story, that is made up, if a car goes off an overpass in the Bronx, that is made up, etc.-- a categorical dismission (is that a word?).
Generally, the Manipulator class has a much harder time categorically dismissing an entire class of information as suspect or illegitimate, such as denying the entire knowledge-making production of universities across the board because professors by virtue of being of the class: professor are all makers of falsehoods. The same with dismissing all reporting in the NY Times. It sort of takes the Hasty Generalization Fallacy to new heights of absurdity, and you'd thing even Dick Gregory's somnambulistuc BS detector wouldn't fall for such silliness.
Rodgers is a mere House member and a woman/prop to boot, so she is obviously not of the Manipulator/Policy-Setting/Reality-Bubble-Determining Universe. (that piece from Norm Ornstein and Tom Mann is great, btw! http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html)
It leads me to think that the Fox News propaganda universe has progressed to a new and documentable level: where the Manipulators don't have to overtly cast the spin upon the waters and depend upon authoritarian chains of ditto-heads to propagate the virus. Rather, Kool-Aid drinkers are being allowed to manufacture their deep-bubble-land narratives and propagate them.
If that is an accurate observation, a genie is truly out of the bottle, and not just in the Tea Party. This I think is the wake-up call Roger Ailes got recently too, when he had to rein in the network's far-winger extremism and get into line behind Romney. The rank and file, the inmates, in other words, were taking control of the asylum, taking the seeded ideas and reality-spin to its furthest conclusion, and the whack-job conclusions were overwhelming the more Machiavellian needs to actually WIN an election, or at least viably attempt to, as opposed to disbelieving all polls and insisting that candidates who will never poll above 20% could actually carry a majority in the U.S.
Ailes unleashed the genie with the creation of a false-front universe. But I don't think the GOP arch-schemers have thought through the full implications of letting these wild horses run, with the risk that they will go off-message or stop taking marching orders from their Machiavellian (Rovian) Overlords.
Bah, my last minute Newsvine typos got thru. Corrections: DAVID Gregory. Somnambulistic !
That late add paragraph should read:
Brilliant analysis, Chris!
Fox News has created a machine and that machine now will continue ticking no matter what anyone does. They have, in essence, played god and created their own universe. The universe will continue on it's own merry whether their divine intervention occurs or not.
I'd be more cynical about this as an atheist, but I don't want to offend my Christian and other religious friends.
I'll just say that it won't surprise me in the least bit if what brings the Fox News universe down is it's own implosion due to it's own hysteria. The machine has been put into motion and it's not going to stop until it meets something of equal or greater force. And when that happens I prey it's not in the form of violent militancy. But even if it was there is a part of me that has to wonder- do you ever think these people will a. recognize their part in all of this and b. apologize for their part in all of this?
Thank you, tartgarage!
I don't wish to be seen as trying to establish any equivalence here, but it's always been interesting how rapidly the institutions of Nazism collapsed after the death of Hitler. So much depended on one man. Similarly with Mussolini and Franco: "strong leaders" who held together movements that either couldn't survive their absence or couldn't survive except as pale shells of their former greatness.
Roger Ailes isn't a Nazi, although I do think he's far enough to the right to qualify as fascist in a general sort of way, but it's worth asking how much of Fox News depends on him alone. One of the problems with "strong leaders" is that they don't think a lot about and plan even less for the inevitability of a successor. And FN is just a business concern, not an empire. Ailes will inevitably retire and/or die. How long thereafter will FN remain what it is today?
It's called gaslighting. Rachel was talking about facts and Castellanos tried to make it all about her emotional (and mental) state. "We're not arguing," he's saying, "she's just hysterical about something or other." He couldn't argue on the basis of the facts, so he tried to discombobulate Rachel (and the audience).
I get this ALL THE TIME in my other persona on Examiner.com and PolicyMic.com! Not only do they make up their own reality and populate it with their own facts; they're smug and condescending about it AND they tell you to smile! FANSWATS!
Good on Rachel for NOT smacking Alex upside the head - as this lady might have done - and for not allowing unladylike words to pass her lips!
Part, a large part, IMHO of Rachel's effectiveness and a large part of why the Republicans and their Running Dogs fear Rachel is that she is a geeky, friendly, well-mannered, fact-freak sort. She does not yell, bluster or scoff as is, unfortunately, the prevailing norm on too many talk shows where style is valued more than is substance.
It was absolutely maddening to watch his mouth gasping like a guppy, the forced fake toothy grin, the little eye roll with exagerated exasperation. It was effective in thoroughly distracting me from Rachel's message, and had I not been able to go back and re-listen to it, it would have been lost forever. I've never liked him.
Continuing on Carolinalady's point, it's not just that conservatives are working from a totally different set of "facts" it's that they are so completely and smugly and, yes, happily certain that their position is right. It brings to mind this classic op-ed by Joe Klein on Bush titled "The Blinding Glare of His Certainty."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,423745,00.html
And Bush was re-elected.
I know gaslighting when I see it and we saw Castellano engage in it throughout the discussion to silence Rachel as an outlier. Rachel was responsive and should be applauded for not retreating as Castellano condescended to her, bullied her with assertions empty of fact, and in general sought to dehumanize her.
You hit it on the head! He's telling Maddow that she is being 'emotional', but that it's kinda cute.
kudos to Rachel for not smacking him across the side of his head. I hate that little smirking face of his.
"Gaslighting" sounds a lot like impeaching a witness with hearsay in cross examination. Testimony of witnesses is basic to a trial and undermining their credibility is a fundamental strategy. On the other hand, to "simply reject the available facts on the wage gap" is to deny evidence, which is in itself basic to the right-wing mind.
I have the Maddow-Castellanos exchange on tape, I will note how Castellanos "impeaches the witness" or simply denies the evidence. Monk gives evidence above- "I love how passionate you are. I wish you were as right about what you're saying as you are passionate about it. I really do." I wonder if that is impeaching the witness with the accusation of bias.
Mitt Romney and the GOP appear to be intent on "reaching out" to women voters by lecturing them on how they ought to get out of the workforce and gutting laws meant to protect equal rights for every American. This is shameful. And the Republican Party insists it is not engaged in a "war on women"? Then what do they call this? Equal pay is the broadest and most uncontroversial issue in America today. We are not in the 1950's anymore, much to the deep horror of Mr. Romney' and the GOP. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
It's only a "war" if we fight back.
@Ruth I'm in.
While it's so true that we are not in the 1950's anymore, it is also kind of a shame, because at least in the 1950's we had a growing middle class. If the republicons are put in control of the United States, not only will the middle class disappear, our children and grandchildren will never have a chance to improve their status in life. Unless they are born into the privileged elite. The republicons will take us back to the "Gilded Age", if we let them. Wisconsin recently showed us how important it is to get out and vote, so, please, if you believe in "AMERICA", get out and vote in November. It is truly that important!.
This was delightful. Rachel CREAMED the smarmy Castellanos. The extreme head swivel was the best. It was the visual equivalent of Rachel saying WTF.
rachel did not take any crap from him and made him look like a 5th grader on dope!
I am looking forward to followup to that charade on MTP. I turned off the show rather than waste my time with MR. C. . He was clearly being rude, disrespectful to Rachel and all women, and condescending (as Rachel pointed out). I am hoping for and apology of some kind from David Gregory for allowing such behavior from Mr. C. on MTP. I know better than to expect nothing but more of the same form Mr. C. and the current republican party. Sunday was just more proof of how off the deep end they are.
I had the same thought about David Gregory's lack of control over his panel and his show. The constant interruptions were obviously designed to obfuscate Dr. Maddow's point, and she held up well under the 'ah honey, you're just a fact-deficient hysterical little woman, now go back to the kitchen,' attitude Castellanos put out.
As for the claim that 'there is no gender gap in pay, or that if there is, women actually make more' coming from Castellanos, here's a link to a Stanford study that shows 41% of the gender gap of unequal pay can't be explained away with parttime employment, low skilled jobs, or anything else.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/pdf/key_issues/gender_research.pdf
David Gregory has begome so right wing that we can no longer watch his show. He did NOTHING to stop the debacle Castellano was causing. He's no better than another Mitt Talking Head. We used to enjoy the show but do not watch anymore. Just happened to be on by accident (I'm usually on the NASCAR programming). I was appalled at the treatment Rachael was getting from that man and also the woman who agreed with him. She's really a prize....she made me ashamed that she would dare to speak for me! We will NEVER watch this program again. I'll watch reruns of Sponge Bob first!
Castellanos did himself no favors defending Republicans on this issue. Maddow is beyond his skill level. Castellanos was desperate and lost his gravitas by calling Obama and Maddow the problem.
Participants in a debate act the way Castellanos did when they know they've lost control of the debate. He and McMorris had neither the facts nor the high moral ground on their side. Constant interruption and dismissal were the only tactics available to keep Rachel's "fact train" from running them over.
David Gregory needs to stop worrying about offending conservatives by allowing other guests to provide facts and context. If conservatives won't come on the show unless they can lie and spin, good riddance to them. Gregory needs to regain control of MTP.
David Gregory is a closet fascist.
David Gregory needs to be replaced as the moderator of "Meet The Press", or they might just as well the the show off the air. It is a shame that one of the most popular and longest running television broadcasts has fallen to such a low in their commitment to be informative. At one time "Meet The Press" was considered a leader in keeping the American public informed, with honesty and unbiased reporting. Really a shame!
Fans, someone should embroider the following on a pillow and send it to our wonderful and beloved Rachel:
"My passion on this issue is actually me making a factual argument on it."
I fell in love with Rachel when she said, shortly after getting her show, that she was going to privilege correct information over incorrect information. Which she has done with very few hiccups (the biggest having Inhofe on despite the fact that he would use it as an opportunity to spew incorrect information that Rachel would not be able to counter with anything other than "that's not true" to which he would say "yes it is.")
Inhofe impressed me as a skilled sociopath of the highest order. Facts are irrelevant if not his facts. She was hit by a sucker punch from Inhofe. He had no conscientious about lying.
Rachel is to be loved. She did many of us proud. David Gregory did not weigh in and should have. Castellanos disrespected David Gregory as well.
I'd stitch that pillow for her but that would be soooo stereotypical. And trust me, as an avid stitcher and former librarian, I know all about stereotypes! When I listened to this MTP clip, I could see the GOP panelists flinging them like Frisbees. Nothing Rachel said about pay inequality registered, it was like she was talking to someone who did not even speak the same language. The facts were unimportant, and aren't you cute in your zeal! Kudos to Rachel for not stooping to the level of those two. She is a far better woman than I.
It went by too quickly for my liking, but I absolutely salute her chutzpah. Great suggestion to have that embroidered, btw (I might learn how do it JUST for This reason! Hah).
This condescending, misogyny is far too common in this part of the world too. Tired of the women are emotional (which is really what the beasts mean by "passionate") and oh-so cute when they get all riled up. Rachel, thanks for putting the MCPs in their place. There were hoots from my living room in this tiny, teeny teeny country in South East Asia. =)
Qme2, you are right (#7.2). Castellanos treated David Gregory like a girl.
I'd say that he treated David Gregory like a girl because he acts like one, but that would be insulting. To girls.
MTP has gone so far downhill since the sad loss of Tim Russert. Mr. Russert would never have allowed Castellanos to get away with that kind of behavior.
Frankly, I think NBC should toss Gregory, and let Rachel moderate the show.
Now that's the most brilliant idea...Rachel absolutely could fill the shoes of Tim Russert and what a joy that would be.
Pretty sure there's a web-based "make your own embroidered sampler" application.
If only President McCain had been on the show , he would have set them all straight.
Indeed! "Get your biscuits in the oven, and your buns in the bed."
Exchanges like the above give evidence the Republican party has been taken over by dolts and simpletons! Remember Amy Simpleton? -Kevo
And that is what happens when you have a stong intelligent woman on MTP! The smarmy Mr. C, who makes up "reasons" goes down for the count. Women know that the facts are on our side. Keep it up GOP. The lies just keep on coming. Thank you Rachel!!!!!
Betcha Rachel doesn't get invited back anytime soon . Too far from the corporate line with all those facts'n'sh*t
On the contrary, look for the two of them to both be back soon. Seems to me that NBC makes a conscience decision to book combative panelists and they struck pay dirt here. But I agree with others here that Mr Gregory lost control of his show and did not do Tim Russert proud on this one. Rachel was sand bagged, ambushed in fact and David Gregory let it happen. Somebody's got some explaining to do..................
but it didnt seem to bother her, she put Mr C squarley in his place
Both Republicans had this half smile smug expression that was condescending, where the other Dem panelists were serious and respectful.
Kudos to you Rachel for standing up to the ugly Chesire Cat.
But we already know the right is trying to create an alternate reality, that is what the whole Take Back America thing has been about. This discussion is just circling what has been obvious for the past 3 years.
The right has worked very hard to construct their Matrix-like world, where they arrange the policy landscape and the influential players to fit their world view and comfort level. Apparently, to conservatives free people living as we choose is an anathema to them, regardless of how rich and privileged their lives already are. The problem with the construction of this Republican Matrix is that half the American citizens losing their liberties (no job, unable to sell the house, income lowered, benefits gone) aren't asleep while the other half appear to be. Half this nation knows the world Republicans are trying to build is based on on national falsehoods and corporate greed. But for some reason, we aren't doing much to stop the GOP progression of changing our reality to theirs.
If Dems and Indies decide to stay home in November and not vote for Obama because he hasn't been a perfect president, this nation will be forced into living in just that kind of Republican non-reality come January.
I don't want to regress into a false reality, I want to improve and progress in the realty of today. It's my country too.
"Matrix-like world" is a good analogy. Republicans create a parallel universe where the people can be milked.
The above "liberties" are not the only ones we are losing. A recent report just came out that the New York police department, under the current republicon mayor, apparently stops people {the majority of them black or brown} just walking down the street in order to check their right to be in existence, has gone from ninety thousand two years ago to seven hundred thousand last year. Can you say, "Heil Hitler"?
Rachel was on point. love her.
Typical, never let the facts get in the way of slamming the opposition and the facts are that women between 20 - 30 make more than men, than after 45 they make more than men. The gap is when some women decide to have children and Choose to work less so they would not make as much for working less hours.
Also, of the women who stay at home versus the women who continue to work, what is their pay disparity betwenn that group and the working "career" women versus the men...
And those "facts" are located where?
just askin'
Source, please?
LOL! Sorry Sick, we must have posted at the same time.
Usually such "facts" are procured from the nether regions of the anatomy.
You lie...In my opinion...and that's a fact.
unreal and mr. castellanos are no doubt referring to this terrible article in time magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
the article notes that in certain cities, young women are on average making more than men. notably however (as eventually pointed out in the article) this statistic is only true in certain cities where the predominant industry requires college education, and is based on the higher college graduation rate among women than men. the fact remains that even in these cities, when adjusted for education, hours, and type of work performed, women are still paid less.
What don't Republicans understand about the phrase "Equal pay for equal work"?? The disparity is not explained by women working part time vs full time...the statistics were taken from equivalent jobs (part and full time). So a man working part-time makes more than a woman working part time. A woman engineer makes less than a male engineer.
Saying this is explained because some women stay home is throwing BS out there and knowing many people won't understand that it's BS.
I enjoy how he states that facts are being obfuscated instead w/ slamming of the opposition....all the while he's slamming the opposition for being ignorant.
Hypocrisy much?
First of all, if some women didn't choose to have children, who would have them? The men?
Second, Castellanos statement about men working 43 hours vs women working 41 (or whatever it was) doesn't cut it when looking at executive jobs. Executives don't get paid overtime, they are salaried (make a yearly wage).
I wish Rachel had kicked Castellanos in the shins, but she's too classy for that!
huuumm you are talking some awful crap ,where do you find your facts ? oh ibet you got them watching the fox news channel where fiction becomes false fact!
and tall women, between 24 1/8 and 32 3/4 make 4 % more than average men. Dude, get a college degree and learn statistics. To compare men and women you must compare IN SIMILAR JOBS. DO THEY GET PAID FOR DOING THE SAME WORK? No. They get 77% of what men get for the same work. Next this idiot will be saying the laws against contraception and abortion are equally applied to men and women.
To UnReal-3093585: Women earn less than men in almost all professions. Even when controlling for variables such as number of hours worked, work setting, experience, type of occupation, education, number of children, marital status, taking time off to raise children--women are still paid less than men. And the gender earnings gap is as much due to pay differences within occupations as it is due to differences in pay between occupations. The gender wage gap is evident in both the highest and lowest paying occupations for women. My sources are the Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey data (http://www.census.gov/acs/www) and the Institute for Women's Policy Research (http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-updated-april-2011). Where's yours?
"Unreal"! Such a fitting title for your "facts".
I think that MTP needs a apology to Rachel,that Mr.C was very rude,and she deserves better,the republicans know she is very good at what she does.keep up Rachel. I'm in Brazil following you on my computer.
If only President McCain had been on the show? If Meghan McCain had been on the show, she would have shown those two Republican scalliwags some heavy manners! Good for Rachel - the Republican guests were trying to fluster and flummox her!
but they didn't make her flinch any at all she is a very strong woman!
Rachel is a very smart woman, and that beats the efforts to fluster and flummox.
Hear, hear...
I was watching this exercise in B.S. with my older brother who couldn't help remarking how cold-blooded and condescending Castallenos was to Maddow (as well as to his fellow Republican female surrogate, Rep. Rodgers). My brother also couldn't figure out why the Republicans are pretending as if women's health, equal pay, and child-care access can be separated from the economy. He has two kids, and he hasn't yet forgotten how ridiculously expensive pregnancy, infant care, and childcare are these days: $25 cans of baby formula, going through 2 gallons of milk every week, $1600 per month for childcare...
Respect to Maddow for representing the facts with passion! :D
This is what today's wingnut does. Denies reality when it doesn't support the wingnut reality. It's very convenient for them, and it allows them to continue uninterrupted telling the way it is in the wingnut universe from whence they came.
- Tell them health care takes up 17% of the U.S. economy and is therefore the least efficient, most immoral setup in the advanced world, and guess what the reaction is: they simply say it's not true; they don't believe it.
- State any fact on climate change that's easily verifiable from peer-reviewed journals, and guess what the reaction is: it's not true, of course; they don't believe it.
- Show them the historical evidence against supply-side economics and tax cuts and comparing it against non-supply-side eras and guess what they say: it's not true, and the don't believe it.
When you can deny reality, your ideology is safe and you can keep on believing whatever your mind master tell you to believe. 1984-style torture isn't even required. We have modern-day Goebbels like Fox, Limbaugh, Goldberg, Koch Bros., Rove, and the entire Republican party for taking us all down the rabbit hole with them to live in this unbelievable alternate universe.
Dems better get moving, or it's not only game over for the planet's future. It's over for us, NOW!
You have to remember, these are people who claim to believe that the only reason we have death in this world, and the only reason women have labor pains giving birth, is because a stone age woman had a chat with a reptile and then ate a piece of fruit.
That's it - that's why we all die. According to the Right-wingers, that is.
Once you've decided to believe that as if it's fact, it's a lot easier to just make up whatever reality you want and call it fact too. And do it all with the certainty that you have The Only Real Truth - that comes in handy for treating eberyone else with condenscension.
The habit of denying reality (which DisgustedWithItAll so accurately lays out above) has one annoying little side issue that could actually backfire on them:
If all data is suspect and can be easily dismissed and denied, POLLING data is also (to the far-winger audience) just as easily dismissed and denied.
Denying reality only works when you are not directly implicated in the precise FINDINGS and RESULTS of that reality.
If an election is held, with one of the nutjob GOP candidates, or probably even with Romney, the GOP Bubble Audience of Denied Reality could get one massive REALITY CHECK.
If your candidate gets polling numbers that never get above 30%, you can live in a reality bubble all you like, but when the rubber meets the road, your candidate is going to LOSE.
Yes, there is only one thing that will bring reality back to Republicans, and that is their defeat. Barring that, so goodbye to the country you grew up in.
to quote henry kissinger: "everyone is entitled to his own opinion; no one is entitled to his own facts."
Not according to Republicans.
Inside is outside and outside is inside and how can anybody tell which is which. You say the sun is 93,000,000 miles from the Earth. How do you know that? From a godless science text? You say 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. How do you know that? Were you there?
They can deny any commonly accepted knowledge about the world we live in. And they do.
Try discussing economics and science with them. You'll learn it very quickly. They have their own facts and it all supports their ideology.
It wasn't Kissinger; it was senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said "everyone is entitled...." Kissinger's best attributed quote is "The reason academic politics are so bitter is that so little is at stake." (though my cursory research suggests that it was said earlier by others.
Just happened to catch MTP yesterday for the first time in years, and I probably would've switched off if I hadn't seen Rachel. She is the only effective representative of progressive values that is ever on the Sunday shows. Obviously, she doesn't care if she gets invited to the Beltway cocktail parties.
I've never had much use for Castellanos on CNN, but he was really over the top in his condescension towards Rachel. I noticed at one point when she was making a strong factual argument, they moved the camera from a two shot, with Castellanos in the background making constipated faces, to a one shot with just Rachel. Not an accident, I'm guessing.
And what is it with the makeup on that guy? Looks like a couple of pounds of pancake on his face. And I'm still waiting for him to make a coherent argument or rebuttal, instead of head-patting.
Interesting point about the camera shot.
I have said this before and I will say it again I really believe that David Gregory should be reassigned and Rachel be given that MTP gig at least till after the November elections. I really am upset that Gregory as let Rick Santorum & Michelle Bachmann get away with saying all kinds of nonsense without being challenged that would never happen with our Favorite Lesbian Vampire Author in the Big Chair
I am so glad others see David Gregory dose not have control of his show...... i sent him a tweet yesterday,,,, telling him is starting to look like Fox's News... where is your open mind and why do you let the rep. walk all over you.....glad others are seeing what I am... thankssssssss
I get pissed at David Gregory every week, he NEVER calls out lies and misinformation, he isn't fit to fill Tim Russert's shoes.
My thoughts exactly, Bill King!!! My brother and I have been pis***d off since the Michelle Bachmann show; besides being allowed to continue to spew her craziness, she was allowed to continuosly interrupt Sen. Gillebrand (sp?). He is NOT a good host for MTP; Tim Russert would have surely challenged them on their "facts". We need a more effective host!!! RACHEL FOR MTP HOST!!!
Tim Russert was a gem on there. Not only did he question them, but when they were dumb enough to deny it, he would play a clip or quote from a speech/article they made. Gregory only reads what the tealiban sends him to promote on the show. He wouldn't know a fact if it slapped him in the face.
lol, literally, at the last sentence. Politically what's happening in our country, and what the press is allowing to happen in how they report things "fairly" which ends up not being truthful and is cowardly, is very depressing. NEed a laugh once and a while, thanks.
Elect Romney in November 2012, and the world will have implemented "1984." This from Ezra Klein this morning:
Eric Fehrnstrom, senior adviser to the Romney campaign, April 30, 2012:
These people aren't kidding around. They aim to alter reality. Are there enough ignorant, gullible Americans to allow it to happen? Bush was elected in 2004 wasn't he?
This time it's more serious. It'll be government by Randian libertarians.
I'm not sure that Bush was legitimately elected either time!
Wrong book. They'll not implement 1984, they'll implement the Handmaid's Tale.
Anyone who fears Mitt Romney come next January is being foolish. Believing Obama and his band of thieves is a very dangerous thing. None of what is happening on this date is all smoke and mirros. Unemployment rate is actually 11 Percent. Youth Unemployment for those 16 to 19 is 25 percent. So don't believe Rachel or any of the Liberal Media. They are perpetuating the lies by the White House.
And we should simply believe you because...why?
Rachel was great, but Hillary Rosen killed right at the end of the segment. No response. The Wingnut Congresswoman was stunned.
In fact, Hillary was holding back and yet stunned both conservatives.
I have watched parts of this several times. Thank you Rachel for being so smart, so articulate and so focused. Thank you for being my advocate even though you don't know me. Thank you for being the voice of my daughters who are just entering the workforce. You are making a difference in the world.
Will Republicans never cease in their efforts to disturb and depress me?
No.
They have to be defeated or they will destroy your country right before your very eyes.
For the sake of humanity I almost wish McCain and Palin had won in 2008.
The actions that the GOP proposed would have created a world wide depression beyond anything ever before seen that in the aftermath would have kept conservatives out of world politics for the next 100 years. Perhaps longer when the genetic test is found to identify them.
I know I would be dead. 57 years old on full disability and living on $1200 a month S.S. checks after the $50,000 I owe of student loans takes out a share.
I'd eventually be dead as well...after suffering horribly. I'm younger but not able bodied due to injuries. Expendable....just a taker, to some of them. I even applied for food stamps for the first time ever...which I've clearly been told I by them I should be ashamed of that I'm lazy and don't want to work.