Please! No body cameras for police.

Following the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, MO, there is a loud hue and cry for the police to wear body cameras. "If the policeman had been wearing a body camera, we would have known exactly what happened", they insist.

Wishful thinking.

The Staten Island event which preceeded the death of Eric Garner, is hard evidence that body cameras would never tell us "exactly what happened".

In this case, the media and many individuals are insisting that officer Daniel Pantaleo used a choke-hold on Garner resulting in his death. Pantaleo says he did not use a choke hold, the Grand Jury did not think he used a choke-hold, nor did Staten Island D.A. Dan Donovan.

I have watched that video several times and I find it impossible to determine exactly what Officer Pantaleo did... from the video.

Most often, "hidden cameras", dash cameras - even body cameras deliver a picture that is out-of-frame, out-of-focus, or, more commonly, simply at the wrong angle to show the details we seek.

I am reminded of the oft-used challenge to an official's call in an NFL game. In the chaos of a play, an official near the play announces what happened. From the far edge of the field, coaches believe they saw something else, so the call is challenged.

Then, the video of the play is reviewed, usually as shot by more than one camera, from more than one location, and probably always in slow motion. And remember, that video was shot by a professional cameraman using very expensive professional equipment.

More often than not, the call made by the official on the field is sustained.

In the Staten island case, that cell phone video might well lead to additional, unwarranted charges against Officer Pantaleo.

Could there be an inept official calling NFL plays? Yes, but rarely. Could there be a police officer using prohibited tactics and lying about it? Yes, but rarely.

The odds are with the NFL official - and the police officer. Not what we might see with a small, relatively inexpensive body camera.     

Reality IS color blind!

Looking beyond all the talk of discrimination, racism, white privilege and lists of other talking points by race baiters, and victim wannabes, we see concrete proof that it's all BS. Yet, these groups fail to see, or at least fail to acknowledge this proof.

A Black American can never get ahead in America they scream, but we just keep seeing Black Americans get ahead... way ahead!

It is tough for any American not born to privilege to win fame, and/or fortune. But there is a formula for doing it, and it works regardless of skin color, ethnicity, or any characteristic from birth.

That formula is open to all: Get an education; obey the rules; be dependable in your work place.

Consider Bobby Jindal, Nicki Haley, Suzana Martinez, minorities who are members of the most exclusive club in the world: State Governors... only 50 members among some 315 million Americans.

How about Dr. Ben Carson, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and dozens more highly respected, highly accomplished, successful black Americans.

Or, look to the world of sports, or of music, where ability means everything. No one is born with the ability to play an instrument, hit a baseball or shoot a basket. It takes lots of hard work, endless practice and a determination. But those efforts will not be denied because of minority status.

Both Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams were born dirt poor, were raised in those abominable housing projects. Success came to these black economists in spite of their race or their humble beginnings.

As a child, New Mexico Lt. Governor John Sanchez was so poor that when he wore holes in the soles of his shoes, his mother could not afford to have them repaired. She cut liners from cereal boxes 

Sadly, many young Americans are being taught there is no opportunity for them in America. They are urged not to be successful, as that would not be black enough. In other words, don't strive for good grades in school; don't dress and groom yourself for success: that would be "acting white". 

But, a white youth can fail just as quickly as a black one. Witness the young men who wear their trousers low on their hips. In many American jails and prisons, inmates are not permitted to have a belt, so their trousers hang low on their hips. Emulating a prison inmate is a good first step toward becoming one.

Success or failure come to those who seek it. Reality proves it.  

It takes love

to fight a war.

Many are wondering what happened to the Iraqi Army. The U.S. spent millions - perhaps billions - to train and arm them. But when they confronted a serious enemy, they abandoned their arms and fled. Should have been no surprise.

Engaging in battle with an "army" proven to give no quarter, one which honors no rules of war, or humanity, is not easy to do. In fact, it cannot be done unless - as Ayn Rand once wrote of selfishness - you would rather die than give up what your enemy seeks to capture.

Personally, I grew up on a farm in Missouri. We had ponds for swimming, patches of woods for endless fun climbing trees, meadows for hunting rabbits. I have looked in awe at the Grand Canyon; have skied in the majestic mountains of western America; have scuba dived off the coast of Florida. I love this land, my personal America.

I love our Constitution which guarantees freedom and rights to all. Those rights may occasionally be infringed by some politicians, but our system of free and fair elections usually corrects those errors.

I have a marvelous relationship with an extended family. I would not want to live at the price of having any one of them captured, raped, tortured, executed. I would go to war with anyone posing a grave threat to my family, or my America. Millions of Americans feel the same way. It is hard for us to understand anyone who would not fight for family, for their country.

But consider the Iraqi soldier. He grew up under Saddam Hussein, he witnessed countless atrocities by his government. That government was overthrown by the Americans. A democracy was established, which also proved to be corrupt. Now that government has been replaced.

It is very difficult to be loyal when you don't know what's coming next. Better to quit the fight and go home, hoping you can protect your family from whatever comes.

Going into battle is a very scary thing. Training and arms is not enough. You have to love what you are fighting for.

Stupid is as Obama does

In the past few days, I have read different opinions of Barack Obama's intelligence, submitted by competent observers: He is said to be very smart. He is said to be stupid. I believe the latter.

Why would Obama keep his academic achievements a secret? Because he did not achieve.

Why would Obama ignore the advice of experts? Because he is so bound by his ideology (whatever it is!) he cannot accept advice that does not conform.

Why does Obama (apparently) ignore the advice of his political advisers? They got this dummy elected to the world's most prestigious office - twice! Does anyone believe these top-drawer political minds told him (with approval ratings in the 30% range) to stand up three weeks before an election and say his policies will be on the ballot? That assertion will doom the candidacy of some Democrats

Who does have his ear? Those billionaire donors? Valerie Jarret? Michelle? Can't be Biden. That old fool insults our allies, then has to go on an apology tour.

Our own military experts, active duty and retired; our friends and allies in the region; all tell him the urgency of  the ISIS threat, and what must be done. He does nothing.

Our founders visualized the coming of a really bad president. They provided by giving us impeachment as a tool. But they didn't visualize a timid Congress.

They made it possible for a president to resign, as did Richard Nixon when his own party leaders urged him to do so. But Democrat party leaders seem willing to see the nation destroyed before they will risk destroying their brand.

In my lifetime, America has taken some severe blows, but always recovered. Can we recover from Obama's presidency?

Our first test comes on November 4.

Unredeemable people

The world is now aware that fighters for The Islamic State in Syria and Iraq are murdering people in frighteningly brutal ways. Beheadings, crucifixions, firing squads. Often after a spell of rape and torture of their victims.

Now there is an ugly, new twist: westerners - Americans, Brits and other Europeans, are rushing to join them.

Why? It can't be for the money. IS isn't paying their fighters that much. And, there is a significant chance they will die at some point during their adventure.

It would appear there is a single reason - they want the freedom to murder people. If they commit a murder in their home countries, they are sure to be caught and punished. Commit a murder fighting with IS, and there is no immediate price to pay.

I graduated from the U.S. Army's Infantry Basic Training School and was taught all the Army could teach (short of actual combat) about killing. Still I abhor the sight of a wounded, bleeding person.

Military combat is terrible, but it isn't always personal, savage. I asked one combat Veteran of the Korean War how many Chinese he thought he had killed. He said he had no idea... there were many kinds of weapons in play, everyone was shooting, many Chinese were falling.

With IS, however, you grab a fellow by the hair and whack at his neck with a dull knife until his head is severed. Or, you nail a child to some kind of cross. You make your captives kneel before you and shoot them in the back of the head, one by one.

The person who would leave the United States and travel to the middle East to participate in that activity is not a human. They are not redeemable. Like a rabid animal, they must be destroyed.

Thoughts

It was a thousand years ago when western Europeans, mostly Christians, got their fill of Islamic conquest and decided to push back. They took the fight all the way to the Holy Land. Unfortunately, they quit before the goal of ridding the world of Islam was complete.

Perhaps they were distracted by Columbus' discovery of the New World. In 1519, Spanish Conquistador Hernan Cortez led an expedition to present day Mexico in search of riches for Spain. (Gold often trumps religious fervor.)

But Cortez encountered the Aztecs whose priests ripped the hearts out of living captives and even from their own children, as a sacrifice to their "gods". Cortez realized that no good could come from such beliefs and set about to destroy the Aztec "religion". This time the job was successfully completed.

Had it not been, Aztec priests would still be murdering innocents and, most surely, Western politicians would be calling it a Religion of Peace.

Once again, Europe is in a position where Muslims are "invading" their countries as immigrants. Like the founder of Islam, the pedophile Muhammad, these immigrants relentlessly push for the acceptance of Islam.

In Syria, Iraq and elsewhere, Muslims are exhibiting savagery as brutal as were the Aztecs. Convert or they will behead you. But, today there is no Hernan Cortez. Western politicians insist that the brutality comes only from "radicalized" or "extreme" practitioners of Islam. Islam, they tell us, is a religion of peace.

Scriptures from Muhammad's Quran, however, tell us differently.

An evening with an ancestor

Think of one of your long gone ancestors. Imagine they could come back to spend one evening with you. What would you most like to show them?

My paternal grandfather died in 1937. I remember him when I was a child. If a small airplane flew overhead, he would look up at the sky and mutter, "I'd just as soon he flew over someone else's house!". I think it would be great fun to take him aboard a Boeing 747 jumbo jet. How may he react?

My father died in 1968. Dad had a very curious mind. And he had an unyielding urge to solve problems quickly. If he heard a new squeak or rattle when he drove his car, he would want to pull over onto the shoulder and try to find the source.

He had the same sense of urgency for learning the correct meaning of new words, and kept one of those huge unabridged dictionaries at hand. How I would like to demonstrate the internet for him. Not only could we find the meaning of a word lightning fast, we could hear a speaker correctly pronounce the word... something his great dictionary could not do.

Arab contributions

Long, long ago, before Islam, Arabs made important contributions to the civilized world. They devised a number system that was hands down better than Roman numerals.

It was an Arab shepherd boy who discovered he could stay awake by chewing coffee beans! Wow, do I appreciate that!

But today, it would seem, the Muslim Arabs spend their time dreaming up new ways to kill innocents. After World War II and the Korean War, civilized nations went to great lengths to protect against invading or attacking armies.

But, a small group of Muslim people-haters, dreamed up a way to kill innocents: by hijacking our own airliners and flying them into office buildings. Okay... a new threat revealed. So civilized peoples quickly developed security measures for airline travel.

Now what have the Arab Islamists done to attack Israel? They build an elaborate network of tunnels reaching deep into Israeli territory, so they can suddenly pop out of the ground and slaughter unsuspecting civilians. Or they kidnap innocents, knowing that civilized people place great value on every innocent citizen. Kidnap one Israeli citizen, even one soldier, and you have a valuable bargaining chip.

How sad to see minds twisted  by hate.

Boycott

Every week or so, it seems, someone suggests we boycott someone - some business entity - because of a disagreement with the ideology of the business' owners.. I never participate in one of these boycotts, because I think they are un-American.

You might look at it this way: What if the proposed boycott is against someone who holds beliefs closely aligned with your own? (Can you say Chick-fil-a?)

If you are an adherent to the First Amendment, you must hold that Americans' free speech is protected. The Supreme Court of the United States memorably stated “[i]t is firmly settled that . . . the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.”

Assuming the business is offering a product or service you want or need; a quality product or service at a fair and competitive price. You may not punish that business because the owners hold political views contrary to your own, and still say you will obey the U.S. Constitution.

That does not mean that, at the time of your purchase, you cannot express your disagreements. Remember, however, that if you are talking to a sales clerk, they will probably wonder what the heck you are talking about!

The genius of Facebook

I am still not sure how Facebook works, but it is easy to see why it works, and it is a stroke of genius. Genius that has earned founder Mark Zuckerberg over three billion dollars a year, for a decade. Three billion. That is one million dollars, three thousand times over! Each year!

Having just made Facebook connection with a couple of old friends, we are expressing our gratitude to Mr. Zuckerberg. In all reality, the connectability of his web site is not the point of his genius.

Imagine, for example, people praising television for providing us commercials to view. For the most part, we hate the TV interruptions for commercials, yet think of the amount of money spent to get you to sit in front of your TV. All that expensive programming, expensive studios, towers, etc.

Or, imagine our being overjoyed to open our mailbox and find it is crammed full of advertising flyers. Did you ever stop to think how much it costs to print those things, then address them, and finally, pay the postage to get them crammed into your mailbox? Surely the cost doesn't make you hate them any less.

But with Zuckerberg's invention, we are delighted to add our eyes to his web site, and we urge our friends to do the same.

You say you never thought of Facebook in the same class with TV commercials or advertising flyers? That's the genius.

Zuckerberg has designed Facebook to attract as many "friends" as possible. It beckons your friends, and their friends, and their friends friends... all around the world. Each pair of eyes carefully counted to prove to advertisers the "reach" of their ads. The greater the "reach", the greater the charge.

Even television promotes Facebook... for free! TV News programs invite their viewers to join them on Facebook and become part of their broadcast. That is amazing! That is part of the Zuckerberg genius!

Thoughts

The big hassle over Hobby Lobby's employer-provided health insurance is a farce. No employer is required to provide insurance. That practice began as an effort to avoid wage and price controls.

It is hard to believe the extent of the disconnect between the Obama Administration and the American Public. When a majority of Americans believe the country is on the "wrong track", is it still a "Government by The People"?

Why is there support for the Palestinians by Americans? Even American Jews? After Japan struck the U.S. at Pearl Harbor, in 1941, The U.S. engaged in a war with Japan and demanded unconditional surrender. After Islamists struck a blow at the American homeland on September 11, 2001, the U.S. declared war on Afghanistan and rooted out the stronghold of the enemy. But, when Hamas rains rockets on Jewish civilian targets, Israel faces condemnation for defending itself.

Why are there such gross misinterpretations of recent Supreme Court rulings? Like The Constitution itself, the SCOTUS rulings are easily understood by any literate American. Yet, people who surely know better, twist the meaning to the opposite of what The Court says.

What is it called when someone shoots down an airliner with 280 passengers and 15 crew members, killing all aboard? If true, it is murder, 295 counts. Let's see if Mr. Putin and Mr. Obama can do the right thing and bring someone to justice.

 

Adorable or Abominable

The offspring of most living creatures are adorable. Young cubs of the big cats are cute and cuddly. Unlike their parents, they pose no threat to humans. The same is true of essentially all mammals. And for reptiles and amphibians.

Tadpoles may be an exception, but as soon as they become frogs, they're cute. Very young marsupials may start out ugly, but as soon as they acquire their identifying fur coat, they are adorable.

Sea turtle hatchlings, scrambling from the sand to the sea, are also cute. Even fish fingerlings are miniature versions of the adults of the species.

But, what is true for all these creatures, is not true for birds. Featherless baby birds are well endowed with ugliness. Even when they fledge, most birds are awkward looking to say the least. It isn't until they are full grown adults that birds acquire their beauty.

And many birds are the most beautiful of all living creatures. No mammals acquire the colors of our most beautiful birds. With the exception of a few tropical frog species and a few tropical snakes, all reptiles and amphibians are green. Sort of.

We live in a fascinating world!

People

Now past the midway mark in my tenure as an octogenarian, I've decided I really like people. I know there are some bad apples around, but they are a very small per cent of the population.

The vast majority of people are enjoying the promised life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Trying to get ahead, looking out for family and friends. Happily I have reached the stage where ethnicity, skin color, religious belief or formal education mean nothing. Any prejudices of my youth have faded away, and I can enjoy all people.

Years ago I read that most people are yearning to engage in a friendly conversation. I have watched my wife prove this to be true. She'll go to the store and strike up a conversation with the other lady mulling her produce choices. Then she'll chat with the next customer in line for checkout. She'll engage the cashier in a chat. All these people smile and happily respond. It's like they were hoping someone would talk to them.

I also once learned not to react to people. Don't let someone else determine your attitude. Never become a grouch because you've met a person acting like a grouch. Give them the same big smile and friendly greeting. It will make you feel good.

Liking people, just because they are people, can be rewarding. Try it!

The way I saw it

How is it that we fought a bloody war with Japan, which then became a quite successful nation and an ally to boot, while for all of our efforts in Iraq, they are now headed for civil war and disaster?

I paid a brief visit to Japan in 1947, when MacArthur was in the process of transforming the Island nation. No, I had no privilege to inside information. In fact, I was probably the least important American to ever visit Japan.

But I saw Japanese digging in garbage cans for food. Japan was a nation squeezed dry by the wartime generals seeking to dominate all of Asia.

Japan, with their ancient customs and deified Emperor was about as far removed from America's way of doing things as possible.

But, unlike in Iraq, where we seemed hurried to declare them a sovereign nation, MacArthur had no such plans for Japan. First, he had demanded unconditional surrender to end the war. Then he proceeded to set up a democratic government.

In Iraq, we heard hedging assurances that their new constitution would not necessarily look like the U.S Constitution. In Japan, MacArthur said "You will do this the way I tell you, period." In a reasonable time, Japan's economy was growing and the Japanese people forged ahead.

In Iraq, the freed Iraqis had no idea how to live as free men, and no one stayed to make them do it right. People were saying, "we gave the Iraqis a chance at freedom, now it is up to them." Someone might give me a chance to fly an airliner, but that doesn't mean I would even know how to start the engines.

In Iraq, we thought we could build an Iraqi army and they would defend their country. In Japan, MacArthur said forget about a new Japanese army. First build a successful government and we will later talk of your defense. That was nearly seventy years ago!

Why would we not follow such a successful pattern in Iraq? Because American politicians are so eager to prove they are smarter than their predecessors. They are going to do it differently, come hell or high water. Then they make excuses when their policies fail.

Eric Cantor Defeated.

Several have called Cantor's defeat an "earthquake". Others are speaking of a disarray in the GOP. It is as though a Congressman seeking his eighth term should never be defeated. Actually that is the point of primary elections... to ask the voters if they wish to continue to be represented by this man. What's so earth-shattering about their saying no?

This is the way America works. It gives us a chance to get rid of the guys who are not doing their job. It also means we will occasionally lose a really good man (or woman).

Is it such a shock that the primary voters wanting a change actually got out and voted? Or,that the voters who supported Cantor stayed home on election day? A disappointment, perhaps, but no great surprise.

Primary election day was June 3 in my county. Only 13% of registered voters bothered to vote. My guess is that similar numbers applied in the Virginia election. That is the sad part. Because so many voters ignore primary elections, we are allowing a very small minority to determine who our candidates will be in the general election.

I have an idea: create a lottery every election. Let the governmental entity holding the election create a lottery pot, contributing 1¢ for every voter casting a ballot. When all votes are counted and the election certified, draw one name from all who voted, and award them the pot. If there are 100,000 voters, the pot would be $1,000.00 - not enough to break the county, or city, but enough, perhaps, to attract voters. And voters might encourage their neighbors to vote... to enrich the pot.

Just Watch!

In the summer of 1937, when I was inching toward my ninth birthday, my grandfather, for whom I was named, was dying from cancer. One afternoon, the adults in the family were gathered around his bedside, when he summoned me. I loved my grandfather, a tall, gentle man. That demeanor belied the rough and tumble life he had led.

Born in 1862, before the Civil War had reached most of the bloodiest battles that would be fought, he grew up in Kentucky, then followed the frontier to Texas, and later to Oklahoma, where he participated (unsuccessfully) in the run for land in the "Cherokee Strip".

When I reached his bedside, there were hugs, and conversation which I no longer remember. Then, my grandfather said he had something he wanted me to have, and he gave me his gold pocket watch.

When I was sixteen, I carried the watch for some time, but eventually the mainspring broke and I put the watch in a drawer for safe keeping.

In 1968, my father, like my grandfather, died from cancer. Upon his death, my mother gave me my Dad's gold pocket watch. I placed that watch in the drawer with my grandfather's watch, and there the two watches have lain for forty six years. Somehow I had it in my mind that neither of the watches worked.

Recently, I became acquainted with a man who is a professional horologist, i.e., a watchmaker. I had called him to repair my grandfather clock, which task he completed in about five minutes. I was so impressed, I asked him if he would take a look at a couple of old pocket watches.

He confirmed that the mainspring was broken in my grandfather's watch. We are now trying to find a replacement main spring for a watch made in 1904. Then, the horologist examined my father's watch and showed me that that watch was not broken and seemed to be running normally.

I am astounded that after forty six idle years, that watch now keeps perfect time. I set that watch by the Official U.S., N.I.S.T. Time Clock, and re-check it each morning. To my great surprise if keeps time to the second!

As a former broadcaster, that degree of accuracy is important to me. My friends are often amused at my insistence on accuracy in a timepiece. What amuses me is that once all gentlemen carried a highly accurate watch. Another surprise is that both my Levi and my Wrangler blue jeans, and even my cargo shorts are still made with a watch pocket!

The hard truth about wages.

My current city of residence is contemplating a minimum wage of $10.10 per hour. Is it a coincidence that this is the exact same figure President Obama is pushing as a minimum wage? Of course not. Our local government is dominated by Democrats who place allegiance to political party above all else. This action is nothing more than a declaration of their love for and loyalty to a Democrat president.

So, what's wrong with a minimum wage of $10.10? Or $11.11? Or $9.09. Or any other amount? It is wrong because price fixing is unfair.

When someone employs a worker, they are agreeing to a swap: a certain amount of money for a certain amount of work. It is a fair square trade. How does it make sense for a government, with the full force of law, to set a minimum for one side of that trade? Why not a minimum for the other side?

Imagine a "minimum work law". Suppose we write the law to require a minimum of forty eight hours of work, for an unspecified weekly wage. No one would consider that to be fair.

Setting a minimum wage is never the end of the argument. A business must make a profit to stay in business. If wages are raised to an unprofitable level, one of three things will happen: 1. The business will close its doors. 2. The business will raise its prices (if competition permits). 3. The business will develop a way to operate without the expensive employees.

Already we are seeing some restaurants install computer stations at tables, allowing customers to order without a waitress. That is simply the latest version of sales by machine. As a teenager, I worked for a company that operated cigarette vending machines. The company sold truckloads of cigarettes... no sales clerk... no cashier.

Each of the above enumerated events will result in the loss of jobs. The minimum wage may help a few, but that help will come entirely at the expense of other employees, and often also of the consumer.
 

Fire Shinseki? Why?

To fire the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, Eric Shinseki, over the current scandal spreading through the Department would serve only one purpose: to provide the satisfaction of punishing someone.

It would assure that nothing would be done toward solving the problem. It would embroil the Senate in a big confirmation struggle to approve a replacement Secretary..The problem is not management...it is government... probably all three branches.

Long ago, in an effort to protect Civil Service employees from being used as political pawns, the Congress made it almost impossible to fire an under-performing employee.

Then, to reward organized labor for supporting one political party, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) were permitted to set up work rules designed to drain any remaining incentive from Department employees. Betsy McCaughey, former Lt. Governor of New York, says "For AFGE, the VA is a jobs program. The union wants more patients, bigger VA budgets, and more staff, never mind what ailing vets need."

You cannot fix this system. The government should sell every V.A. hospital. Yes, there are many good employees among the current 300,000 work force. Under professional, private administration, the former V.A. hospitals would eagerly retain those good employees.

Then, give the Vets proper health care. Several systems have been suggested. It should be possible to agree on one of the choices.

Politics of group destruction.

Larry  Elder is one of my favorite commentators. Larry holds forth for three hours daily on KABC , an L.A., AM radio station at 790 k.c. Also, I think you can hear his program on line.

More importantly to me, Larry also writes a opinion column. In this week's column, Larry takes white race-card hustlers to task. As Larry points out, these people - largely Democrat office holders - accuse "Republicans" of being racists. Almost without exception, these accusers do not give names. They make the most vile accusations, but never actually tell us whom they are accusing.

The objective, of course, is to keep assuring minority voters that they, the Democrats, are protecting them from the racist Republicans. Which Republicans isn't important. They just want the minority voters to mark a straight Democrat ballot in the next, and every election.

When Bill Clinton sensed that Republicans were accusing him of misdeeds, and giving his full identity, he screamed against "politics of personal destruction". Perhaps this explains why the current white race-card hustlers do not name whom they accuse: include all Republicans in one big swipe and it is not "personal destruction".

There is a lesson to be learned here. When any American, but especially journalists, hear an accusation of racism, they must demand a name. Never permit someone to make accusations in anonymity.

And, if they do give a name, insist they spell out a time and place to substantiate the claim.

Gender inequality in pay.

The firing of new York Times Editor Jill Abramson somehow set off a new round of debate over gender inequality in pay.

It is said that Abramson was paid less than her male predecessor, or less than her male replacement. I forget which.

The whole idea of gender inequality in Abramson's pay is most puzzling because it is being offered by some otherwise smart people. Do these pundits truly go wacko when they discuss wages, or are they simply trying to sell a wacko idea?

There are some lines of employment where gender inequality in pay would be truly wrong. "Piecework" immediately comes to mind. You cannot pay one gender more per widget made. But there are many more examples where unequal pay for equal work is likewise wrong.. Being Editor of a major newspaper is not one of them.

You may remember "The Peter Principle", formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter in 1969. The Peter Principle held that everyone who is promoted up through the ranks, will eventually reach their "level of Incompetence". That is, they will eventually reach a job level in which they cannot perform.

We are told that Abramson was, indeed, promoted up through the ranks. Perhaps she did reach a job description for which she was not competent. Maybe she reached that level sooner than her predecessor. Hence, she never reached his pay level.

As to her replacement, equal pay does not apply here, either. You have to find someone you believe is qualified for the job, and, is willing to take the job! Not an easy trick. If you find someone with successful experience at an equal newspaper, she or he is probably happy in that job and is well paid. It may take a significant increase in pay to lure them away. Gender is not a factor.

Also, wages are a cost of doing business... and must be treated as such. Compassion and sentimentality don't count! That's the hard part for most folks to swallow.