Compensation and Business Size

Mathbabe has a post titled When is smaller better in which she examines two articles, one in the Wall Street Journal and one in the New York Times on the subjects of  women CEOs and CEO compensation respectively.  In the article from the Wall Street Journal the author is bemoaning the fact that women owned business tend to remain smaller than male owned businesses (note that one would have to be exceedingly shallow to hold such a view and I would assume the author lives in New York, which is a magnet for the superficial, the glib, vain materialists and other schematics) In any case, the money quote is here:

But you know what? I’ve got a new way of looking at “irrational behavior.” Namely, assume it’s totally rational and figure out what assumptions you’ve got wrong. Let’s stop here and apply this approach. From the article:

“Women start businesses to be personally challenged and to integrate work and family, and they want to stay at a size where they personally can oversee all aspects of the business.”

Well that was kind of too easy. Turns out that right there, in the article, there’s a rational explanation for a so-called “irrational behavior.”  Which is not to say that the writer respects that explanation, of course. Much of the rest of the article focuses how you can convince CEO women that they’re being idiots to think like that.

That kind of intellectual rigor is rarely found in members of Occupy Wall Street, and despite the infantile profanity makes for a good post.  Read the whole thing.


Public Declaration of a Simpleton

That education in the West is in decline is painfully obvious as shown by this insult aimed at Justice Scalia:

Where else but Twitter can one so clearly demonstrate a retarded worldview in so few characters. “LeftWingCracker’s” comment is based on an assumption all too prevalent in simple minds, to wit, the passage of time means an improvement in institutions of men or in this case the art of interpreting the law.  The passage time only means change, not improvement.  Some institutions improve, some become degenerate and some become obscure. I doubt LeftWingCracker has ever thought about his most basic assumptions.  I doubt if LeftWingCracker will challenge the assumptions that guide his world view anymore than flies hovering over a roadkill will.

Drinking and driving.  Drugging and dying.  
I see two signs:  I don't care. I care too much.  
Both lies will meet at the same grave.  
Who is going to follow me there?

I saw you swinging in your sundress
your tans legs aimed at the sky.  
You pretend not to see me. 
I pretend I don't care so you won't know I care too much.  
Both lies will meet at the same grave.

I see the devil's smile shining in the silence
between the shadow and the sound.  
He grows strong in the self-hatred;
teaching despair to pupils like me
who never let go.  
But I  don't really care
because I care too much.  
Both lies will follow me forever.

Come here beautiful. 
I hab eine tiefe Sehnsucht nach dir.  
Und du weißt was ich will.  
Naja, es liegt mir nichts mehr daran.  
Ich will nur, nur
Ich bin ganz zerstört.
Aber du weißt das schon.

Unscrupulous Hacks

Why do these weasels keep getting elected?  I guess what Vox Day says is true.  Perhaps most people are idiots.  All the more reason to shrink the central government.  How many homosexuals will continue to vote for this murder’s row of slime balls.  Everyone who did last time I will bet.  These politicians have no honor, of course, some of them would think that compliment.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act “a great, historic day for equality in America.”

He went on: “The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have a negative impact on anyone else, or on our nation as a whole, has always struck me as absurd.”

Pretty strong words from a guy who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.

But Reid isn’t the only one. There was a long line of prominent Democrats Wednesday who all queued up to applaud the Supreme Court for striking down DOMA — even though they voted for it when it passed in 1996.

Even Bill Clinton — who signed the bill into law — heralded the court’s decision.

Compel Him to Pay

Why stop with denying the biological father any rights to his child whatsoever?  Might as well make him pay child support to the adoptive parents of his child.  He just needs to man-up.  At least that’s what I keep hearing.  We are so used to phony claims of injustice that when the real things comes along people lose focus.

The court said the father could not rely on the Indian Child Welfare Act for relief because he never had legal or physical custody at the time of adoption proceedings, which were initiated by the birth mother without his knowledge.