|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 7, 2019 23:39:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 8, 2019 13:01:15 GMT -6
This puts a nice dent in the Women's Soccer team pay gap being sexist narrative: dailycaller.com/2019/07/08/womens-soccer-pay-gap-guardian-analysis/team is paid so much less than the men’s team is buried inside a Guardian explainer on the “gender pay gap,” and it apparently has nothing to do with sexism. The headline plays up the difference in pay — as much as three quarters of a million dollars — but buries the simple economic realities undergirding the pay structure. “Revealed: the $730,000 gender pay gap in US World Cup bonuses,” it reads. (RELATED: Nike Releases Video Celebrating Women’s World Cup Win) A graphics display shows that women on the team can earn a maximum of $260,869, while men can earn up to $1,114,429, suggesting sex-based discrimination. But a closer look at the analysis reveals that women actually are paid far more than the men, in terms of the percentage of prize money FIFA doles out for World Cup tournaments, and that women are offered a fixed salary of $100,000 which supplements the bonus system, while men are not. women are paid 124 percent of Fifa’s prize money if they win the tournament, while men are paid 24 percent. The difference in pay comes down to the vastly different sums FIFA pays out to the winner. In 2018, FIFA made $400 million available to men playing in the World Cup, compared to just $30 million to women. The Guardian reports: But if Fifa prize money is the basis for most of the bonuses US Soccer provides the players, the federation is wiling to overpay the women – but only as long as they win the World Cup. US Soccer’s $9.4m bonus for the men’s team if they win the World Cup is 24% of Fifa’s $38m in prize, whereas US Soccer’s bonus of $2.5m for the women’s team if they win the World Cup is around 126% of Fifa’s prize money offered when the USWNT’s CBA was signed in 2017. (Fifa has since increased the women’s prize money from $2m for the World Cup winner to $4m.) The women’s team is suing the U.S. Soccer Federation for what they say is a pay gap based on institutionalized sexism. The Guardian also notes that they are not using current bonus figures in the lawsuit, making the gap appear larger. In fact, the bonus paid out to women for helping the team qualify for the World Cup more than doubled from $30,000 in the last World Cup to $75,000 under the latest contract.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 8, 2019 16:25:51 GMT -6
This puts a nice dent in the Women's Soccer team pay gap being sexist narrative: dailycaller.com/2019/07/08/womens-soccer-pay-gap-guardian-analysis/team is paid so much less than the men’s team is buried inside a Guardian explainer on the “gender pay gap,” and it apparently has nothing to do with sexism. The headline plays up the difference in pay — as much as three quarters of a million dollars — but buries the simple economic realities undergirding the pay structure. “Revealed: the $730,000 gender pay gap in US World Cup bonuses,” it reads. (RELATED: Nike Releases Video Celebrating Women’s World Cup Win) A graphics display shows that women on the team can earn a maximum of $260,869, while men can earn up to $1,114,429, suggesting sex-based discrimination. But a closer look at the analysis reveals that women actually are paid far more than the men, in terms of the percentage of prize money FIFA doles out for World Cup tournaments, and that women are offered a fixed salary of $100,000 which supplements the bonus system, while men are not. women are paid 124 percent of Fifa’s prize money if they win the tournament, while men are paid 24 percent. The difference in pay comes down to the vastly different sums FIFA pays out to the winner. In 2018, FIFA made $400 million available to men playing in the World Cup, compared to just $30 million to women. The Guardian reports: But if Fifa prize money is the basis for most of the bonuses US Soccer provides the players, the federation is wiling to overpay the women – but only as long as they win the World Cup. US Soccer’s $9.4m bonus for the men’s team if they win the World Cup is 24% of Fifa’s $38m in prize, whereas US Soccer’s bonus of $2.5m for the women’s team if they win the World Cup is around 126% of Fifa’s prize money offered when the USWNT’s CBA was signed in 2017. (Fifa has since increased the women’s prize money from $2m for the World Cup winner to $4m.) The women’s team is suing the U.S. Soccer Federation for what they say is a pay gap based on institutionalized sexism. The Guardian also notes that they are not using current bonus figures in the lawsuit, making the gap appear larger. In fact, the bonus paid out to women for helping the team qualify for the World Cup more than doubled from $30,000 in the last World Cup to $75,000 under the latest contract. Since 2008 12 US soccer players have made at least $1 million - 6 men and 6 women. The women get 13% of the revenue and the men 9%. Estimated revenue for the next cycle? Women $131 million. Men - $6 billion - with a bee.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 8, 2019 16:26:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 8, 2019 16:59:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 8, 2019 18:43:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 9, 2019 12:00:55 GMT -6
This puts a nice dent in the Women's Soccer team pay gap being sexist narrative: dailycaller.com/2019/07/08/womens-soccer-pay-gap-guardian-analysis/team is paid so much less than the men’s team is buried inside a Guardian explainer on the “gender pay gap,” and it apparently has nothing to do with sexism. The headline plays up the difference in pay — as much as three quarters of a million dollars — but buries the simple economic realities undergirding the pay structure. “Revealed: the $730,000 gender pay gap in US World Cup bonuses,” it reads. (RELATED: Nike Releases Video Celebrating Women’s World Cup Win) A graphics display shows that women on the team can earn a maximum of $260,869, while men can earn up to $1,114,429, suggesting sex-based discrimination. But a closer look at the analysis reveals that women actually are paid far more than the men, in terms of the percentage of prize money FIFA doles out for World Cup tournaments, and that women are offered a fixed salary of $100,000 which supplements the bonus system, while men are not. women are paid 124 percent of Fifa’s prize money if they win the tournament, while men are paid 24 percent. The difference in pay comes down to the vastly different sums FIFA pays out to the winner. In 2018, FIFA made $400 million available to men playing in the World Cup, compared to just $30 million to women. The Guardian reports: But if Fifa prize money is the basis for most of the bonuses US Soccer provides the players, the federation is wiling to overpay the women – but only as long as they win the World Cup. US Soccer’s $9.4m bonus for the men’s team if they win the World Cup is 24% of Fifa’s $38m in prize, whereas US Soccer’s bonus of $2.5m for the women’s team if they win the World Cup is around 126% of Fifa’s prize money offered when the USWNT’s CBA was signed in 2017. (Fifa has since increased the women’s prize money from $2m for the World Cup winner to $4m.) The women’s team is suing the U.S. Soccer Federation for what they say is a pay gap based on institutionalized sexism. The Guardian also notes that they are not using current bonus figures in the lawsuit, making the gap appear larger. In fact, the bonus paid out to women for helping the team qualify for the World Cup more than doubled from $30,000 in the last World Cup to $75,000 under the latest contract. Since 2008 12 US soccer players have made at least $1 million - 6 men and 6 women. The women get 13% of the revenue and the men 9%. Estimated revenue for the next cycle? Women $131 million. Men - $6 billion - with a bee. Great points, but, a counterpoint: The Women's Tournament just cleared a little over a billion viewers for the whole tournament for the first time in their history,(which deserves much needed kudos). www.bbc.com/news/world-48882465However, contrast to the Men's Tournament which happened last year. The Final match alone cleared over a billion viewers,(report I read had it as more viewers total than the entire recent Women's tournament), & they cleared over 3 billion viewers for the entirety of their tournament,(basically they drew in 3x the viewers, etc than their female counterparts). www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/more-than-half-the-world-watched-record-breaking-2018-world-cupThis right here is why the so called "pay gap" exists,(similar to athletes in the NBA make significantly more than their female counterparts). They are the draw and the Women's game is looked upon as mere "filler" until the next Men's World Cup.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 9, 2019 17:05:57 GMT -6
I may have misspoke. That may be the revenue for the WC. I've seen it reported both ways.
The women have a following but how many people in Africa are watching them? And then how many are watching the men. Or in the Middle East. They're getting a bigger cut but the men bring in 45 times as much
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 9, 2019 17:06:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 9, 2019 18:31:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 9, 2019 22:58:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 9, 2019 23:36:50 GMT -6
I remember Obama saying there was a story in his family that he was related to Jefferson Davis. I remember the outrage over that. Well, maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 10, 2019 2:52:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 10, 2019 16:12:26 GMT -6
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit filed by DC and Maryland claiming President Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution because foreign government officials stay at Trump’s DC hotel. This is a huge win for Trump and Judge Paul Niemeyer, a George H.W. Bush appointee said they did not have the standing to sue President Trump. “Indeed, there is a distinct possibility — which was completely ignored by the District and Maryland, as well as by the district court — that certain government officials might avoid patronizing the Hotel because of the President’s association with it,” Niemeyer wrote, according to The Hill. “And, even if government officials were patronizing the Hotel to curry the President’s favor, there is no reason to conclude that they would cease doing so were the President enjoined from receiving income from the Hotel,” Niemeyer continued. “After all, the Hotel would still be publicly associated with the President, would still bear his name, and would still financially benefit members of his family.” thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/452388-appeals-court-dismisses-emoluments-clause-lawsuit-in-win-for-trump
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 10, 2019 22:55:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 10, 2019 23:05:25 GMT -6
Apple, meet tree.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 11, 2019 4:01:49 GMT -6
Because nothing empowers weemins and impresses the young girls that adore you like being drunk and vulgar in public.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 11, 2019 14:14:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 11, 2019 14:16:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 11, 2019 19:28:35 GMT -6
So, is the whole "Man-made Climate Change" narrative about to go the way of the Russian Collusion hoax? www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/scientists-finland-japan-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practiceBombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice" ............. A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies. “During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.
This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors. The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo in Science Daily. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect." In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover "practically" controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity. The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies conducted by Finland's Turku University team: We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature. This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding current models which politicians and environmental groups across the globe are using to push radical economic changes on their countries' populations. ......... percent, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” the researchers concluded. And the team in Japan has called for a total reevaluation of current climate models, which remain dangerously flawed for dismissing a crucial variable: This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era. Failure to account for this results in the following, according to the one in the series of studies: "The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models."
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 11, 2019 23:24:16 GMT -6
She acts just like someone that has sexually assaulted.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 11, 2019 23:25:19 GMT -6
So, is the whole "Man-made Climate Change" narrative about to go the way of the Russian Collusion hoax? www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/scientists-finland-japan-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practiceBombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice" ............. A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies. “During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.
This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors. The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo in Science Daily. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect." In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover "practically" controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity. The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies conducted by Finland's Turku University team: We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature. This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding current models which politicians and environmental groups across the globe are using to push radical economic changes on their countries' populations. ......... percent, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” the researchers concluded. And the team in Japan has called for a total reevaluation of current climate models, which remain dangerously flawed for dismissing a crucial variable: This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era. Failure to account for this results in the following, according to the one in the series of studies: "The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models." This is such old news. This has gone on for decades and it will continue to do so.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 11, 2019 23:45:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 12, 2019 6:15:53 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/49418/watch-cnn-contributor-threatens-gorka-gorka-doesnt-ryan-saavedraCNN contributor Brian Karem appeared to threaten former Trump administration official and current radio host Sebastian Gorka on Thursday after President Donald Trump held a press conference at the White House. Karem looked at a group of individuals, many of whom were Trump supporters, that had been selected to attend the White House's Social Media Summit and said, "This is a group of people that are eager for demonic possession." Gorka laughed and yelled, "And you're a journalist, right?" "Hey, come on over here and talk with me brother, we can go outside and have a long conversation," Karem said while giving a snarky look at Gorka. Gorka rapidly approached Karem and yelled in his face: "You are a punk. You're not a journalist. You're a punk." Gorka said in a video that he posted to his Twitter that Karem "wanted to challenge me to a fight outside the White House."
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 13, 2019 8:59:16 GMT -6
So, Twitter decides it's wise to shadowban President Trump the day after he holds a summit with conservative journalists about tech bias:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 14, 2019 6:50:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 14, 2019 12:21:29 GMT -6
Very valid points:
FYI, for those who may not know, but these are whom President Trump is talking about:
Rep. Ilhan Omar is a refugee from Somalia, of all places, and HATES her adopted country. Rep. Rashida Tlaib is the eldest daughter of Palestinian immigrants in Detroit, Michigan. Rep. Praila Jayapal is a migrant from India and frequently trashes her adopted country.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 14, 2019 20:31:32 GMT -6
Very valid points: FYI, for those who may not know, but these are whom President Trump is talking about: Rep. Ilhan Omar is a refugee from Somalia, of all places, and HATES her adopted country. Rep. Rashida Tlaib is the eldest daughter of Palestinian immigrants in Detroit, Michigan. Rep. Praila Jayapal is a migrant from India and frequently trashes her adopted country. MSNBC was losing its collective mind over this.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 15, 2019 3:42:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 15, 2019 3:54:40 GMT -6
I saw that and laughed hard. The fact she knew nothing about it, etc was very telling for one of our “leaders” in Congress.
|
|