YOUR COMMENTS

Lost in this discussion is the fact that Ledbetter was paid less just because she was a woman. Do you think this is right Spike? I have a hunch that you do.
- Bob, Bedford

Most people have no idea that Congress rarely reads the stuff they vote on. Urge your Congressperons to pass the 'Read the Bills Act,' which would force every member of Congress to read a bill before being allowed to vote on it.
- Nick, Las Vegas, NV

Spike, I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear in my original post.
The first part of my comment was for general consumption and probably should have contained a 'sarcasm' tag.The second part was meant for you, in response to wanting your/our country back.
As usual, Spike, I find your comments spot on.

Keep up the good fight!
- Mike P., Manchester

Mike P., I am a foot shorter than you; and though you might not be a whiner, the next time I buy a home, government building codes will force me to pay extra to have it built for you. I am told that only the state can have the interests of the *next* buyer in mind.

It might be 50/50 individualists vs statists as you say, but the statist is more likely to blog (look at the rail fanatics writing posts nearby, with more out-of-staters than any time since the campaign!), endure "ethics" disclosures and manufactured scandals to run for office, and of course lobby and contribute. Americans who don't need to live on the backs of their neighbors are underrepresented in our welfare state.

Kerry says the Ledbetter law won't help "slackers...but...employees with legitimate grievances." But not grievances at any time during their employment. John Edwards used to fight against lawsuit reform, including adoption of the loser-pays rule, by arguing that it would take a right away from "the poor." Indeed, as the self-reliant, even when they could manufacture a "legitimate grievance," move on with life rather than seek vengeance with frivolous lawsuits. A tool of "the poor" is not above reproach except to those who want to unconditionally punish the successful.
- Spike, Brentwood NH

Discrimination?? Fairness??

As a left-handed, 6' 6" tall, cigg smoking white male, I could tell you all about discrimination and the unfairness of life, but I won't. I don't feel like whinning today. I just suck it up and deal with it.
Perhaps I, along with some of my fellow disgruntled giants, should start launching class action lawsuits to force society to raise the height of street signs and doorways. I'm starting to feel left out of the pity parade.

Spike, I'm afraid the only way we will get our country back, at this point, will be to act upon Jeffersons suggestion of staging a revolution.
Given the near 50/50 split (constitutionalists/idividualists vs. socialists/stateists) of our modern society, perhaps "civil war" is a more accurate term.
At this point I'll settle for being already dead when the well-meaning, yet severely misguided, among us finally drive the last nail into the coffin of our Constitution.
- Mike P., Manchester

Kerry writes about the laws we need to let the nation's Lily Ledbetters "get back a portion of their losses." There are no losses, as Lily, like the rest of us, agreed voluntarily to the terms of their employment.

Ah, but she didn't know what we know (and probably didn't have the enlightenment of a good Women's Advocate). The Ledbetter law says that, if a woman agrees to a salary, she can say five years later that she didn't mean it. Lefties who hurled accusations at arms-dealers for profiting in Iraq will be silent about this windfall to the trial lawyers.

And pragmatically, such fantasy rights for female workers to withdraw consent retroactively will be as disastrous for female employment as it has been for courtship at UNH. Again, a liberal law hurts its intended beneficiary in order to give gadflies greater control over private enterprise.
- Spike, Brentwood NH

Spike makes a good point. It is impractical and probably impossible to get most companies to publish salaries. So how could Lily Ledbetter be expected to know her salary was so much lower than her male counterparts? That's why a six months statute of limitations was so unfair. Also. do people realize how difficult it is to win a lawsuit based on discrimination, whether sex, race, or age? You have to satisfy a court through persuasive evidence that the discrimination actually exists, and that is no easy task. This kind of judicial redress is not some easy avenue for slackers to take advantage of the system, but it is a chance for employees with legitimate grievances to get back a portion of their losses.
- Kerry, Londonderry

So, Kerry, would it be "fairer" if we could all compel publication of our coworkers' salaries and all litigate any discrepancies as we now, litigate many elections? Then it would be even "fairer" if we could just take from people with higher wages and give to lower wages without pretense of mistreatment or need for lawsuits. Much fairer, but cooperation would be impossible and malcontent would be actively rewarded--as it is when my congresswoman states that we must ask everyone to contribute to the bailout "on the basis of ability"--quoting Karl Marx--and when Obama goes after chief-executive pay and bonuses, ensuring that our most crippled industries will lose their most skilled managers to other companies, other industries, or a four-year vacation, waiting for a government that won't view their hard work as something to be "spread around." I want my country back.
- Spike, Brentwood NH

I often disagree with Editorials that are posted on this site. Mostly due to political ideology. Honest people can have an honest difference of opinion regarding the relative merits of their ideology.

However, occasionally an Editorial will appear in which the author is clearly distorting the truth, such as this one. These are the ones that remind me just how sick, manipulative, and despicable some conservatives are and how bankrupt their philosophy is. They count on the ignorant to read and digest this tripe without ever thinking twice. Their faith is not misplaced for the most part.

There is no way this author doesn't know that he is deliberately distorting the truth in order to manipulate the rank and file. If we ever do descend into a Civil War it will, in large part, be due to scoundrels like the one who penned this piece.

Kerry, thanks for trying to set the record straight. Unfortunately, most of the readers of this newspaper take anything that is written by the right wing partisans on this site as Gospel. How easy it is to manipulate the ignorant.
- Mike Lane, Manchester

And one more fact: Ledbetter found out about the discrimination and waited five years before doing anything about it. She has poor judgment.
- Nick, Manchester

And now for some actual facts. The Supreme Court overruled lower courts who ruled in Ledetter's favor because of a statute of limitations argument. Ledbetter worked for lower wages than every male counterpart (even newbies) for 18 years, but she wasn't aware of the pay discrepancy. The court refused to go back further than 180 days before she filed suit. Do you know what other people in your workplace make? I don't.
Do newly hired employees demand their employers disclose such info? Not if they want to stay employed. It is an impossible standard.
Let's not forget, Ledbetter was a hardworking citizen who ended up with way less money, less pension, and less social security benefits, and no opportunity to even present her case to the Supreme court for a determination if sexism was involved. There is no "fallacy" in this bill that a lower paycheck for women means sexism automatically, there is an OPPORTUNITY to prove it if the facts actually support her claim.
- Kerry, Londonderry

It is nice to read at least one newspaper that remembers the truth about the Ledbetter story. Of course the truth is often inconveinent to the far left, as it often is to the extreme right too. Next up? Women who take off 15 years to raise a family and then sue to be placed back in thier old company at a position and pay based on actually being employed and working their for those missing 15 years?????
- Jeff, Goffstown

Yes; the other fallacy in the Ledbetter bill is the belief that if a woman is paid less than a man in the same job, the only explanation is misogyny or hatred of all women. (Harvard canned Lawrence Summers for even suggesting study of alternative explanations for the comparative rarity of women in academia.) Notably, a member of group X who thinks that all non-Xs are out to ruin all Xs, over time, develops a bad attitude, and bad attitudes are one thing that inhibits advancement in a corporation. Every time a woman and her lawyer convince a jury that everyone was out to get her, we descend from a meritocracy into a nation of excuse-makers.

Agree that Republicans over the last 8 years have given their bills slogans instead of names; and Ledbetter is a slogan. (I want a Congressman who votes against any bill that comes packaged with a victim!) But Democrats are advancing bills whose name is the OPPOSITE of what they do: "Employer free-choice" to obviate secret ballots to certify unions, and the "Fairness Doctrine" to muzzle Rush Limbaugh.
- Spike, Brentwood NH