Snippets…

A local attorney named Todd Phillips is a major proponent of enforcing equal pricing laws. He argues that charging men higher prices is discriminatory. Phillips has several successful law suits under his belt, many of which employ rhetoric of gender discrimination to challenge pricing discrepancies.

We’re good so far.

On the surface, Phillips’ cause appears valiant. Who doesn’t support the eradication of inequality?

Ooh, ooh, let me guess. You.

Even more embarrassing is the fact that Phillips’ case was the first in Nevada to challenge a supposedly sexist business policy, on behalf of men.

What’s my prize?

If Phillips truly wanted to challenge economic inequality, why not tackle the gender wage gap? Women might get into night clubs for free, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are underpaid for equal work.

*headdesk*

I had trouble quoting directly from this article because it was so grammatically incorrect. Nice to know that even college newspaper editors can’t construct a sentence these days. Be sure to check out more grammatically-incorrect goodies from Marisa Christensen.

(click the image for a full-screen version)

This means that when she speaks, I barely have to add commentary, I can just copy and paste - which makes my life really easy. Thanks, Marcia!

Some gems from Ms. Pappas from today’s Politico, entitled VP Pick May Chafe Hillary Supporters:

Marcia Pappas, who heads the New York state chapter of the National Organization for Women, believes that Clinton supporters “would be outraged to know she was not given that right of first refusal.”

“She is the only woman in history who has ever garnered this much support,” Pappas continued. “She is the only woman in history who was able to raise the kind of money one would need to run a presidential campaign.”

Actually, as of June 2008, Clinton is still more than $10 million in debt, not counting the $11.5 million she personally loaned her own campaign. Don’t know about you, but I always prefer my candidates to be incapable of balancing their own budgets.

“I would be very concerned about his judgment if he offered the position to another woman before offering it to Hillary Clinton,” Pappas said, “or any person.”

“The women who have been elected to office in this time in history are the beneficiaries of the women’s movement,” Pappas continued. “And it’s disheartening to see those same women turn their backs on another woman who is better qualified, and one can only wonder what they are getting out of their decision to turn their back.”

If a woman was offered the VP spot and declined, that doesn’t mean Hillary would get it. Second, you can only wonder what they would get out of accepting? Really? Let’s see … maybe the chance to be VP?

As for women politicians as a whole, I’d say their supporting any candidate on the basis of their gender alone would show poor judgment. How is it their fault who gets Barack’s VP nomination? According to you, no one is listening to the female politicians, anyway.

Kim Gandy, president of all of NOW, can’t help but chime in, and apparently neglected to compare notes with Pappas before doing so:

“There are a lot of women apoplectic at the discussion of Bob Barr and Chuck Hagel,” said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women.

“It seems like the smart choice will be to pick Hillary Clinton because she adds so much to the ticket but the second choice should be a nominee who supported Hillary Clinton, to try and bring the sides together.”

These “stern” quotations are particularly amusing to me because they are effectively endorsing McCain, which NOW would otherwise claim never to do.