Walter Russell Mead, American Interest
For years, one of the few stereotypes acceptable in polite company was that of the ignorant American Christian. Obama’s “bitter clingers” comments were only the tip of the iceberg. Below the water line, newsrooms and lecture halls around the country are rife with complaints about the backwards religious Americans in the heartland who add to any number of social ills, from poor educational attainment to bigotry to poverty.

MOUNT KISCO, N.Y. -- The son of Sen. Robert Kennedy invoked his father's assassination Thursday in a case stemming from his attempt to take his newborn son from a hospital maternity ward.

Douglas Kennedy is charged with endangering the baby and physically harassing two nurses in the January incident.

After a mostly procedural court session, Kennedy said, "It is OK for a father to hold his son in his arms ... my father was taken away from me when I was a baby."

"The only thing I wanted to do that night was to be with my son and hold him in my arms," Kennedy said.

On Jan. 7, Kennedy tried to take his 2-day-old son from the maternity ward at Northern Westchester Hospital in Mount Kisco, about 30 miles from Manhattan. He said he wanted some fresh air for the baby, but nurses tried to stop him, citing hospital policy, and a tussle was recorded on hospital video. Security guards were summoned and the baby stayed in the hospital.

The hospital reported the incident to police and the state's Child Protective Services. Kennedy was arrested in February.

One nurse said Kennedy twisted her arm as she tried to keep him from leaving with the baby, and another said he kicked her.

Kennedy, 44, said Thursday "I was protecting my son from a complete stranger who tried to grab him from my arms."

Kennedy's wife, Molly, said "our lives have been turned upside down simply because my husband wanted to take a walk with our son."

Kennedy lawyer, Robert Gottlieb, called the prosecution "a disgrace." He said Kennedy had received a letter from a personal injury lawyer representing the two nurses.

"Certain individuals have taken advantage of a situation to line their pockets," Gottlieb said.

A state investigation, including a visit to the Kennedy home in Chappaqua, found no evidence of child abuse by Kennedy. That conclusion does not directly affect the child endangerment charge, but Gottlieb has filed a motion to dismiss all charges.

Assistant District Attorney Amy Puerto said in court that the prosecution would fight the motion.

A small group of nurses from the state nurses union demonstrated outside court demanding that the harassment charge be upgraded from a misdemeanor to a felony.

Juliane Hatzel, a recovery room nurse at Westchester Medical Center, said "nurses get hurt all the time and there's usually nothing that comes of it."

Donna Hemmer, a nursing supervisor at the same hospital, said "I commend the nurses for putting the safety of the baby ahead of their own safety."

Kennedy is next due in Mount Kisco Town Court on June 14.

Kennedy, a reporter for Fox News, is the 10th of 11 children of Robert and Ethel Kennedy. His father was assassinated in 1968.

Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday the Republican Party's "war on women" is real and will "intensify" with appointments to the Supreme Court in the next presidential term.

"I think the war on women is real," Biden said in an interview with MSNBC's Ed Schultz. "And look, I tell you where it's going to intensify. The next president of the United States is going to get to name one and possibly two or more members of the Supreme Court."

Biden, interviewed during a visit to New Hampshire to promote President Barack Obama's proposed Buffett rule for the wealthy, defended the administration's jobs record. Presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney in the last two days has claimed the war on women's real antagonist is Obama, because of an economy that has taken a toll on female jobs.

When asked by Schultz about Romney's claim that 92 percent of people who lost jobs during Obama's presidency were female, Biden criticized Romney and his party for their attitudes toward women.

"This guy had -- these guys had the social policy on contraception that takes you back to the '50s," Biden said. "I mean, when asked the question, do you think this legislation passed mandating that your son and daughter doing the same work will have to get the exact same pay, the Lilly Ledbetter law, they couldn't answer."

Biden's Ledbetter reference was to a question HuffPost's Sam Stein asked during a Romney campaign phone conference Wednesday on whether Romney supported the equal pay act. Romney's campaign later confirmed the former Massachusetts governor wouldn't repeal the law if elected.

Biden also touched on the controversy surrounding Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen's comments that Ann Romney "never worked a day in her life." Biden said it was "an outrageous assertion" to criticize Ann Romney for not having a career outside of raising her family.

"My daughter happens to have a master’s degree," Biden said. "She’s a social worker. She’s getting married. If my daughter wants to be able to say, 'I’m staying home and raising my kids,' no one should question that."

Biden wouldn't predict whether women would vote overwhelmingly for Obama, as recent polls have suggested. But he said the president's record indicates how women may vote in November.

"Look at the record of who's promoted women’s health, who’s promoted women opportunity, who’s promoted the opportunity to have people in the Supreme Court that recognize that women are absolutely, thoroughly, totally equal in every way as men," Biden said.

He continued: "All I’m saying is I think the case that we can make, Barack’s policies are past our expectations. Our dreams for women, contrasted with the Republican agenda as it has been and continues to be, relative to women, I don’t think it’s a close call."

Stephanie Condon, CBS
Six years after Mitt Romney signed into law a signature health care reform package in Massachusetts, it's his chief political rival, Barack Obama, who's celebrating.President Obama's re-election team on Thursday released a three-minute web video marking the sixth anniversary of the law that's now known as "Romneycare," reminding voters that the signature effort in Massachusetts helped inspire Mr. Obama's landmark legislation.

The Truth-o-Meter says: Mostly False | Mitt Romney chart claims Barack Obama has 'the worst record on female labor force participation'

Amid signs that Barack Obama has gained ground among female voters, Mitt Romney is attacking the president on his record on women. We have already rated one claim from the Romney campaign, that "women account for 92.3 percent of the jobs lost under Obama," which earned a Mostly False. Now we’ll rate a second claim posted on the Romney campaign's website that was forwarded to us by a reader. "What president has the worst record on female labor force participation?" the website asks. "Barack Obama." It adds, "Turning ...

>> More

Bristol Palin is upset and shocked that the father of her son is expecting another child.

"I said, 'No way, shut up!'" she told In Touch Weekly.

Bristol continued, "I think it’s a little bit of everything, and a lot of confusion. I’m upset about it."

She accused Levi of being an absent father to their son, Tripp--something he has blamed on Sarah Palin's efforts to keep him away from the family. Bristol told In Touch that Levi's story is a "lie" and she worries that if her ex continues to spread his seed, Tripp will be teased at school.

"I don’t want him to go to elementary school with 10 half-siblings," she said. "That would really affect him."

Levi and his girlfriend, Sunny Oglesby, appeared on the Insider Wednesday to talk about the pregnancy and try to bring Palin supporters over to Team Levi.

"It's really sad that [the Palins have] put that image out for him cause I mean everyone's gonna believe them because they're more famous," Sunny said. "You know it's Sarah Palin and she has lots of fans so everyone believes that and Levi doesn't really have a chance against them."

Like Bristol, Sarah Palin has accused Levi of lying about his efforts to see his son.

"We have never hidden Tripp from Levi or discouraged Levi from spending time with him," she said in a statement to TMZ. "Any suggestion that we have is false and contrary to our core beliefs."

With 60 years on the throne, the United States could learn a thing or two from Britain's Queen Elizabeth II. As part of her Diamond Jubilee celebrations, Her Majesty will dispatch virtually every member of her family beyond the seas to promote the crown and U.K., PLC. While America does not have a royal family to promote its brand, people and products around the world, it does have an untapped resource with its own brand of royal magic: former presidents and first ladies.

Throughout much of American history, first families retreated into private life once the president left office. Today, presidents and first ladies leave the White House as global figures who can build successful post-presidential careers as authors, speakers, entrepreneurs and philanthropists. While sitting presidents have tasked their predecessors with discreet international duties such as President Reagan having former presidents Carter and Ford attend slain Egyptian president Anwar Sadat's funeral, or President George W. Bush tapping former President Clinton and his father, President George H.W. Bush, to co-chair a relief effort following the 2004 Asian tsunami, the United States has not defined a consistent, strategic role in American life for its former first couples.

White-hot global competition demands that the United States leaves no stone unturned when it comes to selling itself to potential international customers and investors. Millions of Americans jobs rely on selling more overseas and attracting greater investment from foreign shores. From improving math and science achievement and boosting college attendance to securing new trade deals and reforming the federal government's trade promotion bureaucracy, President Obama has advanced a number of initiatives to strengthen America's place in the world economy. Establishing a tradition of former presidents and first ladies serving as roving commercial ambassadors for America during their prime post-White House years could both extend the sitting president's reach and add some much needed sizzle to the substance of boosting trade and investment.

Presidents spend up to eight years at the top of the global game, building a formidable network of government and business leaders whose decisions have a direct impact on American jobs and prosperity. First ladies are no slouches in the global stakes either. As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton barnstormed the globe, building relationships and a public standing that has fortified her as secretary of state. Contrary to her media caricature as a demure homebody, former first lady Laura Bush traveled to more than 75 countries during her husband's administration. And current first lady Michelle Obama has connected with people across nations such as Mexico (America's second largest export market) Britain (America's fifth largest export market and one of its top foreign direct investment partners) and India and South Africa, both critical U.S. allies and regional markets.

While President Obama has said that he will go anywhere to open new markets for American products and has done his fair share of export promotion, the hard truth is that time is a sitting president's most precious commodity. There is rarely enough of it during foreign jaunts to engage in the kind of deliberate glad-handing that is needed to grease the wheels of commerce. For example, President Obama's recent trip to South Korea was consumed by the critical task of tackling the worldwide threat of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Britain has a stable of high profile people removed from politics and the nitty-gritty of foreign policy to dispatch to its key markets. Last year, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge promoted British film and television exports in Hollywood; earlier this year Prince Harry earned plaudits for boosting Britain's ties with Brazil; and later this year Prince Andrew will promote the country's interests in India. And who does America have taking on these chores? An intrepid but largely anonymous band of cabinet secretaries, state governors and local mayors whose workday visits are useful but do not pack the marketing punch of a royal visit.

Former presidents and first ladies have a potent mixture of Oval Office gravitas and pop culture celebrity that can help open doors, shift goods and seal deals for USA, Inc. They can be especially helpful in markets where high-level emissaries are helpful in cultivating relationships and conveying respect on behalf of the United States. Foreign trade missions headlining one of them could give a competitive edge to companies without celebrity CEOs, including small- and medium-sized businesses as well as women and minority-owned businesses that may face perception challenges abroad. The interest they attract on the speaking circuit and in the popular press can help highlight goods made in the USA and promote domestic travel and tourism destinations that employ millions of American workers. To bring more foreign direct investment to Main Street America, they can be mobilized overseas highlighting the skills, flexibility and productivity of American workers and be put to good use at home using their convening power to help communities woo potential investors.

During an era when jobs and prosperity rests on a country's ability to win every customer, serve every market and secure every dollar of investment capital available, the United States can ill-afford to leave one of its greatest public diplomacy assets on history's shelf.

I've been working in politics for a long time. I've read a lot of headlines and heard a lot of outlandish statements, but this one takes the cake. Yesterday, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus announced he is "doubling down" on his "war on caterpillars" remarks. You know, the ones where he compared the GOP's very real War on Women to a hypothetical war on caterpillars. And, that's not even the most ridiculous part.

He called the GOP's War on Women "fictional." He said, and I quote, "It's a fiction because, No. 1, there is no war on women." There is no war on women? I couldn't disagree more. Priebus also seems to think that the only issue in the War on Women is abortion. To put it simply, he couldn't be more wrong.

Just yesterday, it took presidential candidate Mitt Romney two hours to decide that he supported the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This, at a time when women are still earning only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. Unequal pay for equal work doesn't just hurt women, but also their families and our nation's economy. How much time did he need to think about it?!

In his own home state, Governor Scott Walker just wiped out Wisconsin's equal pay law. Wisconsin women are earning 75 cents to the dollar and Governor Walker just made it even harder for victims of wage discrimination to fight back.

The absolutely Draconian budget introduced by Priebus' Republican colleagues in Congress targets women of all ages. It would end Medicare as we know it, and that's a service that elderly women disproportionately rely on. Cuts to Medicaid would also make it harder for families to cover medical costs. The budget also jeopardizes many programs working women and families across the country count on to make ends meet, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

And Priebus' GOP allies in the House refused even to consider the Violence Against Women Act, a bill that is not only crucial for women, but one that has -- until recently -- enjoyed consistent bipartisan support. One in four women in America has been a victim of severe physical violence by a partner and nearly one in five American women has been raped. This legislation is not partisan, it's common sense.

These are just a few examples of the attacks the GOP has leveled at American women. The fact that they are proposing these policies is problematic enough. Now, to add insult to injury, the GOP leaders claim that they don't see these policies as demeaning to women. That these are "fictional" attacks.

Women trying to earn a living to support their families don't consider their wage gap fictional. Mothers trying to buy food for their children don't see cuts to SNAP as fiction. Women who have been the victims of sexual and domestic violence don't see the GOP's refusal to consider VAWA to be fiction. Elderly women don't see the end of Medicare as we know it as fiction. These policies impact women every day in very real ways.

A war on caterpillars is absurd. The GOP's War on Women is very much a reality. And it's one we need to win. EMILY's List has an unprecedented number of women running for the Senate and a field of House candidates that is growing every day. These are women who want to focus on the issues that affect American's every day, like the economy and jobs. Women who not only recognize what attacks on women look like, but know how to stop them.

First Lady Michelle Obama, in an exclusive video for The Huffington Post, shares her personal story of the moment she knew she wanted to help military families. Together with Dr. Jill Biden, the two co-founders have undertaken an initiative to create and secure private-sector jobs for veterans (returning from Iraq and Afghanistan) and their spouses. The initiative, called "Joining Forces," celebrates its one year anniversary on Wednesday, April 11th, 2012. Watch her message above -- and go to joiningforces.gov to find out what you can do to help military families.

More Military Families Week Content On Impact:

Blogs And News

Visit HuffPost Impact's Military Families page for a variety of content, including blog posts from veterans, their spouses, and organizations such as the Wounded Warrior Project and the Coming Home Project.

10 First Ladies And Their Charitable Causes

Looking back at how the wives of our Commanders-In-Chief through history have helped underserved families in need.

HuffPost Book Club: 'What It Is Like To Go To War'

HuffPost Books kicks off a month-long discussion on this non-fiction work by Karl Marlantes, a Vietnam Vet and award-winning writer.

Military Families Photo Album (Below)

Is there a member of your family in the military? Send us a photo of your son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, or whoever has nobly served our country! Email the photo to impact@huffingtonpost.com.

Tough economic times are rough on all politicians, but even more difficult for governors who have to find ways to balance their budgets. And, not surprisingly, most governors have paid a political price for the difficult budgeting decisions they have had to make.

GREENSBORO, N.C. -- After years of investigation, denials and delays, jury selection was set to begin Thursday for the criminal trial of former presidential candidate John Edwards.

Edwards was expected inside a Greensboro, N.C., courtroom to face six criminal counts related to nearly $1 million in secret payments made by two campaign donors to help hide the married Democrat's pregnant mistress as he sought the White House in 2008.

The money flowed to Andrew Young, a former campaign aide who initially claimed the baby was his. Young is expected to be a key witness for the prosecution. The mistress, Rielle Hunter, may testify as part of Edwards' defense.

Following years of adamant public denials, Edwards acknowledged paternity of Hunter's daughter in 2010.

The trial is expected to last about six weeks.

A key issue will be whether Edwards knew about the payments made on his behalf by his national campaign finance chairman, the late Texas lawyer Fred Baron, and campaign donor Rachel "Bunny" Mellon, an heiress and socialite who is now 101 years old. Both had already given Edwards' campaign the maximum $2,300 individual contribution allowed by federal law.

Edwards denies having known about the money, which paid for private jets, luxury hotels and Hunter's medical care. Prosecutors will seek to prove he sought and directed the payments to cover up his affair, protect his public image as a "family man" and keep his presidential hopes viable.

If convicted, Edwards faces a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and as much as $1.5 million in fines.

___

Newt Gingrich tore into Fox News on Wednesday during a meeting with Tea Party leaders in Delaware, saying that his former network home has been deeply biased against him.

"I think Fox has been for Romney all the way through," Gingrich said, according to Real Clear Politics. "In our experience, Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than Fox this year. We are more likely to get neutral coverage out of CNN than we are of Fox, and we're more likely to get distortion out of Fox. That's just a fact."

Gingrich's comments echo those of Rick Santorum, another former Fox News contributor. Both were dropped by the network when they began their presidential bids, and both have accused Fox News of favoring frontrunner Romney over them. Santorum even said it directly to Fox News host Brian Kilmeade.

"He has Fox News shilling for him every day -- no offense, Brian, but I see it," he told Kilmeade.

What is all the more remarkable is that, for a long time, Romney had near-poisonous relations with Fox News.

In his remarks, Gingrich said that he thinks Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch made the call to favor Romney. "I assume it's because Murdoch at some point said, 'I want Romney,' and so 'fair and balanced' became 'Romney,'" he said. "And there's no question that Fox had a lot to do with stopping my campaign because such a high percentage of our base watches Fox."

This week there was another big attack on Social Security by another elite. This time the attack comes from an elite columnist, other times it comes from Wall Street types, wealthy CEOs or the kind of politicians that have been in DC way too long. These attacks never come from people who depend on these programs (i.e. almost all of us.) Why do the privileged elites hate Social Security so much?

Robert Samuelson wrote this week in the Washington Post, Would Roosevelt recognize today's Social Security? Samuelson writes that Social Security, "has become what was then called "the dole" and is now known as "welfare." " He discusses a book that, he writes, "shows how today's "entitlement" psychology dates to Social Security's muddled beginnings."

Entitlements

Elites hate "entitlements" -- those things we all are entitled to as are citizens in a We-the-People democracy. Democracies are based on "we are in this together" and "watch out for each other." Plutocracies are based on rule by the elites. These elites especially hate what Samuelson calls "entitlement psychology" -- a state of mind in which 99% of us forget our place and get all uppity about being citizens in a democracy and the things that entitles us to.

Samuelson's core attack on Social Security is that there is no trust fund, that the money has been spent, and it is just a program where working people pay for the retirement of older people,

Millions of Americans believe (falsely) that their payroll taxes have been segregated to pay for their benefits and that, therefore, they "earned" these benefits. To reduce them would be to take something that is rightfully theirs.

And, he restates, while people think they are entitled to their Social Security benefits it really is just "welfare," writing,

What we have is a vast welfare program grafted onto the rhetoric and psychology of a contributory pension. The result is entitlement.

The "rhetoric" and "psychology" of "entitlement." Public pride in We-the-People democracy. Gotta stamp that out!

(Samuelson, for some reason, does not talk about how the military budget trust fund is depleted and we need to cut back on the trillion-or-so we will spend this year, how it is bankrupting us, etc. Oh, wait, there isn't a trust fund at all for military spending... we just spend it.)

Dean Baker Responds

Dean Baker answered Samuelson, writing in Robert Samuelson Shows that the Post Has no Fact Checkers on Its Opinion Pages,

Social Security and Medicare are hugely important for the security of the non-rich population of the United States. For this reason, Robert Samuelson and the Washington Post hate them.

As we know, this is a question of basic political philosophy. In the view of Samuelson and the Post, a dollar that it is in the pocket of low or middle class people is a dollar that could be in the pocket of the rich. And Medicare and Social Security are keeping many dollars in the pockets of low and middle class people.

Regarding Samuelson writing that the funds were not segregated, and have been spent,

Of course Samuelson is 100 percent wrong here. Payroll taxes have been segregated. That is the point of the Social Security trust fund and the Social Security trustees report. These institutions would make no sense if the funds were not segregated.

Samuelson is welcome to not like the way in which the funds were segregated, in the same way that I don't like the Yankees, but that doesn't change the fact that the Yankees have a very good baseball team. Since its beginnings, the government has maintained a separate Social Security account. Under the law, no money can be paid out in Social Security benefits unless the Trust Fund has the money to pay for them.

In this sense, the funds are absolutely segregated. Samuelson doesn't like this, but why should any of the rest of us care? The rest of the piece shows the same dishonesty and lack of respect for facts.

Jared Bernstein Responds

In WaPo WAY Off on Social Security Jared Bernstein writes,

Here are the relevant facts about Social Security's future (as we at CBPP see them):

-The trustees estimate that the combined Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in 2036 --a year earlier than they forecast in last year's report.

-After 2036, Social Security could pay three-fourths of scheduled benefits using its annual tax income [Samuelson implies all benefits expire in three years!]. Those who fear that Social Security won't be around when today's young workers retire misunderstand the trustees' projections.

-The program's shortfall is relatively modest, amounting to 0.8 percent of GDP over the next 75 years (and 1.45 percent of GDP in 2085). A mix of tax increases and benefit modifications -- carefully crafted to shield recipients of limited means and to give ample notice to all participants -- could put the program on a sound footing indefinitely.

-The 75-year Social Security shortfall is only slightly larger than the cost, over that period, of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans (those with incomes above $250,000 a year). Members of Congress cannot simultaneously claim that the tax cuts for people at the top are affordable [or like the Ryan budget, add trillions more in tax cuts] while the Social Security shortfall constitutes a dire fiscal threat. And the shortfall is well under half the cost over 75 years of making all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent.

Elites Hate It, Hate It, Hate It

At Balloon Juice, the first comment following John Cole's post, It Will Never Make Sense To Me nails the real reason the elites hate Social Security so much. Cole writes in the post that it will never make sense to him ...

Why our elites and media elites have such sheer contempt and hatred for social security. It's there for everyone! It's a solid government program which gives everyone the peace of mind that no matter what, there will be some money available for you to take care of yourself in your most vulnerable years. It's such a miniscule portion of the taxes we pay, and for the ultra-rich screamers who hate social security the most, it's a negligible portion of their income, and it's capped! It's not money wasted on fraud and abuse, it's extremely efficient with the kind of overhead any charity or organization in the world would die to achieve, and it's just an amazing program.

Actually that's the reason they hate it. But the first commenter nails it, writing,

They hate it because it works; Social Security is proof that government is capable and competent. That is why it MUST be destroyed.

For elites this is the problem. Government works, and that tells We, the People that we don't have to depend on elites. That really is why the elites hate Social Security: Because it works.

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.

Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.

Michael Barone, DC Examiner
Now that Rick Santorum has "suspended" his campaign, we can stop pretending and can say what has been clear for weeks: Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for president. The general election campaign has begun.In some quarters, it is assumed that Barack Obama will be re-elected without too much difficulty. There are reports that staffers at Obama's Chicago headquarters consider Romney's candidacy a joke.

A Supreme Court Decision on April 2 upheld, by a 5-4 vote, the right of prison officials to strip-search anyone entering a prison facility. This drastic reduction of fourth-amendment rights -- which protect Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures, and require that arresting officers show probable cause -- can now be applied to any citizen brought to prison. A strip search, the Supreme Court has said, is permissible no matter how minor the offense. It is permissible even where the legal punishment for a specified infraction carries no time in prison.

In the case at hand, Florence v. County of Burlington, Albert W. Florence was forced to spend a week in jail, in prisons in two counties of New Jersey. He was forced to undress and submit to strip searches (including exposure of body cavities), after his arrest on a warrant for an unpaid fine. As the court reporter's summary puts it:

Petitioner claims that he also had to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals. At the second jail, petitioner, like other arriving detainees, had to remove his clothing while an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband; had an officer look at his ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, armpits, and other body openings; had a mandatory shower; and had his clothes examined. Petitioner claims that he was also required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough while squatting.

It turned out that all of these procedures were based on a mistake: Florence had already paid his fine. And as it happens, an unpaid fine is not a criminal offense in New Jersey. But the strip-search policy has by now also been applied to persons arrested for walking a dog without a leash, for driving a car with an expired license, and for taking part in a peaceful protest. Adam Liptak, in his story in the Times, also cited the case of a nun who was strip-searched after being arrested in a political demonstration.

What might easily not be known about this case, to persons who are not readers of Glenn Greenwald at Salon, is that the Obama administration sided with the authoritarians on the court in supporting the right of prison officials to command a strip search. A justice department lawyer, Nicole A. Saharsky, offered these words to clarify the view shared by President Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder: "When you have a rule that treats everyone the same, you don't have folks that are singled out. You don't have any security gaps." The Obama case for abrogation of the fourth amendment in prison thus turns on a lofty non-discriminatory aim: the safety and democracy of prisons.

But is it true to say that no "folks" are "singled out" by such a procedure? Albert Florence is a black man. In 2009, blacks made up 13.6 percent of the U.S. population, but they were 39.4 percent of the American prison population. So let us say it straight. The Obama-Holder view favors the universal application of the strip-search to a situation where some folks, after all, have been singled out as an observable pattern of the usual practice of the system. Liptak, incidentally, in his otherwise solid treatment in the Times, neglected to mention that the administration weighed in before the ruling on the side of the conservative majority.

This decision makes a large example, and the most significant thus far, of the way an expansionist foreign policy based on coercion and violence has come back home to haunt Americans. We have a right-wing practice of foreign policy that is reliably backed by the party of wars and prisons, and a left-wing theory of universal treatment that is backed by the party of speech codes and cultural sensitivity. Conquer them in order to improve them, says the first party. Be sure to treat everyone the same, replies the second -- for surely we are no better than the countries we occupy. The safety we assure abroad by arms we must likewise enforce on ourselves at home.

Foreign policy has come home in the form of pepper spray, Tasers, and strip searches. But there is a practice closer to the Florence case. A mass experiment in the reduction of political self-respect occurs and is reinforced every day, in every airport in the country, in the body scans and pat-downs performed by the TSA. Some of the latter work is necessary, of course, while a strip search of a man with a parking ticket is not necessary. Still, the common experience and the exceptional one are clearly related. The government secured the people's acceptance of the first practice, and it prepared the way for official endorsement of the second. Once again, a political and moral aberration has been redescribed and turned into an approved practice.

The majority opinion by Justice Kennedy reads as if it were mainly driven by custodial anxiety to assure conditions of maximum safety in prisons. "Contraband has value in a jail's culture and underground economy, and competition for scarce goods can lead to violence, extortion, and disorder": that sentence from the court reporter's headnote really looks like the fixed star of the Kennedy opinion. "The seriousness of an offense," the summary goes on to say, "is a poor predictor of who has contraband." Was this, then, a case about the improvement of prison conditions? We had thought it a case about the arrest of a man and the rights of men and women.

Kennedy's opinion remarks that in 1998, "seven years before the incidents at issue, petitioner Albert Florence was arrested after fleeing from police officers in Essex County, New Jersey. He was charged with obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon." Yet this opinion in no way turns on what could be found out concerning the previous offenses of the arrested person. The prison, on the view here upheld by the majority, would have been as warranted in executing the strip-search if the arrested man's last recorded crime was the theft of a pack of Magic Cards at the age of eleven. It would have been no less warranted if he was a recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Justice Kennedy proceeded to say why the majority was right to uphold the reversal, by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, of the district court ruling in favor of Albert Florence. "The [Third Circuit] Court explained that there is no mechanical way to determine whether intrusions on an inmate's privacy are reasonable. The need for a particular search must be balanced against the resulting invasion of personal rights." What is unique about constitutional rights, we had always supposed, is that they are not up for bargaining, not to be placed in the balance against convenience, thrift, symmetry, the desirability of a scapegoat or a jailer's hunch. "The admission of inmates," according to the Kennedy opinion, "creates numerous risks for facility staff, for the existing detainee population, and for a new detainee himself or herself. " Doubtless so. And the weakening of a constitutional right creates a new risk for all Americans.

Let us not overlook the echo here of that concern for "safety" which was articulated often by the Bush-Cheney administration. Barack Obama signaled his solidarity with the Bush-Cheney view, against the demand of constitutional rights, in his curious public comment on the Bradley Manning case. Recall that before being charged with a crime, Manning, whom the government suspects of having illegally supplied documents to WikiLeaks, spent almost a year in solitary confinement at Quantico. Scant physical exercise and frequent interruptions of sleep were his daily and nightly regimen, along with other reductions below the minimal level of decent treatment of a prisoner. This came to be well known in early 2011. Yet, in a press conference of May 11, 2011, when asked about PFC Bradley Manning, President Obama said that he had inquired about the case with authorities at the Pentagon, and "they assure me" that "the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement... are meeting our basic standards. I can't go into details about some of their concerns, but some of this has to do with Private Manning's safety as well."

This comment may be counted among the precursors of the Obama justice department approval of the strip search for everyone. "Some of this," said the president, was for "Private Manning's safety as well." In just the same way, says the Kennedy opinion, the cavity search of Albert Florence was performed for the sake of his own safety in prison.

Much of the majority opinion is taken up with a dreary and credulous enumeration of the objects that can be concealed in the human body, and the diseases that can be carried by prisoners. To repeat: "The record provides evidence that the seriousness of an offense is a poor predictor of who has contraband and that it would be difficult in practice to determine whether individual detainees fall within the proposed exemption. People detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals." Why not be consistent and take the next logical step? People who have committed no earlier offense can turn out to be the most dangerous criminals of all. More dangerous indeed than the minor offenders, since they offer to detection no foothold on any previous bad fortune in character.

"Hours after the Oklahoma City bombing," writes Justice Kennedy, "Timothy McVeigh was stopped by a state trooper who noticed he was driving without a license plate." And again: "Officers at the Atlantic County Correctional Facility, for example, discovered that a man arrested for driving under the influence had '2 dime bags of weed, 1 pack of rolling papers, 20 matches, and 5 sleeping pills' taped under his scrotum." These are true discoveries and unhappy for human trust. There are lots of crimes we do not catch, and there are criminals who cannot be prosecuted to the full extent of their indictable offenses. One must recognize too, in reading this opinion, that it was probably drafted by a young clerk recently out of law school; a person who may never have used sleeping pills and very likely never possessed a dime bag of weed after the age of 13; but who almost certainly had borrowed in school illegal hits of Adderall, Ritalin, or Benzedrine to sharpen performance on tests. That is beside the point, perhaps. The opinion asks us only to consider, as we look at the dime bags and the sleeping pills, What can we do about this tragedy?

Here is one possibility. We can decide that the bags and pills going unnoticed on occasion are a smaller evil than systematically depriving people of their dignity.

Justice Breyer wrote in his dissent: "such a search of an individual arrested for a minor offense that does not involve drugs or violence -- say a traffic offense, a regulatory offense, an essentially civil matter, or any other such misdemeanor -- is an 'unreasonable search' forbidden by the Fourth Amendment, unless prison authorities have reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual possesses drugs or other contraband." You do not have to be an elaborately educated or refined reader of the Constitution to judge that such indeed is the meaning of the fourth amendment.

The words are great and they deserve to be remembered. Here is what the fourth amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How steep is the descent from these words to the new rule by which a majority of the Supreme Court, with a president and an attorney general at their side, have now elected to challenge the constitutional presumption against arbitrary searches and seizures? We will know for sure when we see the next in the series of anti-Constitutional experiments begun by Bush and Cheney and continued by Barack Obama. In the meantime, the following axioms may serve as a guide to the change of morale.

The Authoritarian Catechism

1. There are good people and bad people.

2. A designated function of the police and prison officials is to determine who is good and who is bad.

3. If you are arrested, it may safely be assumed that you are one of the bad.

4. If, at the time of arrest or afterward, you protest your innocence loudly, or speak with indocility to an officer of the law, you have committed an offense graver than many crimes on the books.

5. Breaches of politeness toward authorities form a legitimate part of a record stored up for future use regarding the conduct of all Americans.

6. Authorities must keep such a record because Americans, through tacit consent to laws made and changed since 2001, have affirmed that we think nothing more important than our safety.

7. The duty to keep America safe, and to "protect" all Americans, outweighs the duty to see that existing laws under the Constitution are faithfully executed. Apparent violation of an existing law by a designated authority, so long as it can be seen as consistent with the higher duty of the creation of safety, is itself a sufficient cause for a change of law to accommodate the violation.

8. When not already effected by Congress, such changes will be executed by the Supreme Court.

9. There is a proper trade-off between unalienable rights and collective safety, just as there is a trade-off between the moral commandment not to commit injustice and the human desire to live as long and comfortable a life as we possibly can.

10. Whenever safety and comfort require that injustice be done to individuals, injustice is tolerable and should be supported by other Americans.

11. For an accused person, there is a correct and incorrect posture.

12. The incorrect posture is to be indignant at things done to you, such as the imposition of unnecessary force or unwarranted humiliation. The correct posture is to be grateful to authority for the things that have not yet been done.

Will environmental issues play a role in the 2012 presidential campaign, and if so, how? Keep in mind that in previous White House contests, environmental concerns rarely surfaced in the exchanges between candidates.

Past presidential nominees -- regardless of political persuasion -- who had any environmental baggage successfully diffused the issue by using common sense as a cover. When pressed, they rhetorically asked: who in their right mind would be against cleaner air, cleaner water, and environmental enhancement in general? The answer invariably eased any concerns among the majority of voters, who turned their attention elsewhere.

But the 2012 campaign could be different. From a tactical standpoint, it would be to President Obama's advantage to make environmental concerns as persistent focus in his debates with presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

Ironically, it is a Republican politician who inadvertently (or maybe not so) has provided an environmental campaign blueprint that would allow Obama to put Romney on the spot. The Republican is Sherwood Boehlert, who hails from upstate New York and is the retired chairman of the House Science Committee.

There is a reason Boehlert's proposal is more in line with Obama than one would normally expect from a GOP source. If the "green" Boehlert were serving in today's Republican controlled anti-regulatory House of Representatives, he would be considered a relic and apostate within his own party. It should thus come as no surprise that he has expressed disenchantment with the GOP's current practice of treating environmental protection in a largely antagonistic, partisan way.

Boehlert posits that environmental concerns are too important to be excluded from the presidential campaign dialogues, and accordingly, he proposes the candidates agree to "a set of fundamental consensus principles to establish the parameters of debate." These principles would still leave plenty of room, Boehlert says, for the candidates to advocate different approaches to solving problems.

Boehlert's fundamental consensus principles that he wants Obama and Romney to embrace are:

• Conceding that protecting the air, water, and land is a basic federal responsibility for which the free market, corporate volunteerism, and state regulations cannot substitute.
• Global warming is real, largely caused by human activity, and must be promptly addressed
• The United States needs to move forward towards a more efficient, clean energy economy
• Federal government subsidies are important for research, development, and distribution of alternatives to fossil fuels.

Obama's core constituency and the American public in general would be comfortable with these principles, which have been championed in spirit, if not always practice, by the president. He would have no hesitation in parading them in the public spotlight, stressing for political effect that they were of Republican origin.

But the playing field would be different for Romney. Members of his conservative base are largely skeptical of global warming as a threat, much less as a product of human activity. They consider most environmental regulations an undue fiscal burdens and encroachment on individual freedom to engage in commerce. From their perspective, clean energy can only replace fossil fuels through free market competition, not as a result of federal government subsidies.

That would leave Romney with a toxic political challenge. If he agreed to Boehlert's debate ground rules, he would risk offending the ultra conservative core of his party that already is skeptical of his professed ideological purity. If Romney were to reject Boehlert's consensus principles, Obama could use the refusal against the GOP nominee with independent swing voters. They tend not to share conservatives' zealous ideological opposition to environmental reform.

It would be a win-win proposition for Obama and just the opposite for his Republican challenger.

James Taranto, WSJ
Going meta with this column's Answers to Questions Nobody Is Asking gag, "President Obama said Tuesday that he was not prepared to question the patriotism or love of country of any of his political rivals," Politico reports. But the president went on to say "that the 2012 contest was a contrast in visions of government":Perhaps Obama, stung by the mockery he has received for his ignorant ramblings on constitutional law, has been studying history, because this is actually an intriguing comparison.

Chris Cillizza, Washington Post
Political reporters — all of whom are history nerds at heart — spend countless hours trying to figure out which past election the current elections most reminds them of.It’s part parlor game — you usually win when you compare the current election to the most obscure election of the past possible (this reminds me of the 1876 election between Samuel Tilden and Rutherford B. Hayes) — and part useful political analysis. While no two elections are ever exactly the same, there are elections whose dynamics clearly resemble one another and where...

Harold Meyerson, Washington Post
Why is this recovery different from all other recoveries?Many of the reasons are widely known: Rebounding from a financial crisis takes an excruciatingly long time; the huge decline in housing values has reduced Americans' purchasing power; large corporations are making do with fewer employees "” at least, in this country.But what really sets the current recovery apart from all its predecessors is this: Almost three years after economic growth resumed, the real value of Americans' paychecks is stubbornly still shrinking.

WASHINGTON -- While some pollsters and journalists have recently argued that "voters are stupid," a new national survey shows that most Americans can, in fact, identify the relative positions of the Democratic and Republican parties on a series of important issues.

The Pew Research Center has measured knowledge of current affairs by the general public for decades. Past surveys have found an awareness of some very basic facts among American adults -- such as an ability to identify Hillary Clinton as the secretary of state or Muammar Gaddafi as the onetime leader of Libya -- but less knowledge about the details of politics in Washington. Late last year, for example, just 43 percent knew that Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives but not the Senate.

The latest Pew Research News IQ survey, conducted March 29 to April 1, focuses more directly on Americans' knowledge of the views of the major political parties and the partisan affiliations of well-known political leaders. The survey finds that majorities of Americans can identify Democratic and Republican positions on several key issues.

The Pew report does note "considerable variance" in the survey's measures of political knowledge. On the higher side, 71 percent chose the Republicans when asked which party "is considered the more conservative party on most political issues" and 67 percent chose the Democrats as the party that supports "increasing taxes on higher income people to reduce the federal budget deficit." However, only 53 percent identified Republicans as the party generally more supportive of "reducing the size and scope of the federal government."

The survey also finds some significant partisan differences, suggesting that some of these questions may be measuring respondents' judgments about the performance of the parties as much as their knowledge of the parties. For example, just 46 percent of Democrats chose the Republican Party as the one more supportive of reducing the size and scope of government, compared to 76 percent of Republicans. That difference may indicate that some Democrats have come to see little current difference between the parties on cutting government, despite the historic commitment of Republicans to that goal.

While that particular question produced the largest partisan difference, the survey finds that Republicans are generally more apt to answer knowledge questions correctly, something the report notes is "typically the case in surveys about political knowledge." The reason is demographics. "On average," the report explains, "Republicans are older and more affluent than either Democrats or independents, and both of these are associated with knowledge about the parties' positions and leaders."

A second set of questions concerning the partisan affiliation of political leaders may provide a less complex measurement of knowledge. The results show most Americans can correctly name the party of two fairly recent former presidents. Specifically, 85 percent identified Ronald Reagan as a Republican, and 84 percent identified Bill Clinton as a Democrat. Far fewer, however, knew that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat (61 percent) or that House Speaker John Boehner is a Republican (55 percent).

Of course, these results are for all adults. The report did not break out data for past or likely voters, but earlier research shows a strong relationship between political participation and these sorts of political knowledge.

In response to a request from The Huffington Post, Pew Research shared tabulations of the results by party registration.

Not surprisingly, knowledge is consistently higher among self-identified registered voters, who were 70 percent of adults in the survey. According to Pew Research, registered voters answered an average of 12 of the 17 questions correctly, compared to an average of just nine correct answers from the unregistered.

White the debate over whether voters are rational or "stupid" is certainly larger than this one limited survey, the results do indicate that most voters are familiar with some of the key differences between the two parties.

The results also highlight the sizable minority of Americans who are disengaged from the day-to-day details of politics and illustrate the obstacles facing political campaigns and others seeking to mobilize potential supporters and increase voter turnout.

According to the World Economic Forum's 2011 Global Gender Gap Study, the U.S. ranks 68th in an evaluation of wage equality between men and women among 135 countries that represent 90% of the world's population. Is it "arguable" that earning a living is more important for men than for women, as a Wisconsin state senator suggested earlier this week? Men out-earn women in the U.S. and people in this country think they should continue to do so. Which means individual women, their families and our entire society will continue to pay high prices for what is essentially a broad application of outdated gender stereotypes to economic policy. But hey, the U.S. ranks No. 1 in Miss Universe wins. That's a major relief, because, after all, when women have a vicarious relationship to their income and long term financial security, the currency of their worth is attractiveness, so at least we look good.

Women have made important and major strides in opportunity, work force engagement and pay in the past half century, but next week's April 17 Equal Pay Day exists for an enduring and legitimate reason. This day symbolically marks how far into the year a woman has to work to make what a man made during the prior calendar year. Yup. That means Jane has to keep working through January, February, March and half of April 2012 in order to bring home the same paycheck that John did in calendar year 2011. Since the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the gap between men's and women's pay (calculated for full-time work) has closed at less than half-a-cent per year. At this rate, we will be "celebrating" this event for fifty more years before the gap closes.

You've heard the statistics: The median annual earnings for working (full-time) white women is 77 cents to a man's dollar. For women of color, the gap and its effects are even greater: African-American women earn 61 cents to the male dollar and Latina women earn 53 cents. Controlling for factors like education, experience, job type and more reveals that fully one-quarter to one-half of the gap is attributable to unexplained causes. Women now make up more than half of the U.S. workforce -- this gap affects hundreds of millions of people and families.

Why do we have such an intractable gender pay gap, what do these numbers actually mean and how are you personally affected by it?

Let me say there are no cabals of mean men, dressed for Scottish Rites, plotting to pay women less. It's a matter of deep cultural habits and systematized sexism borne of dated stereotypes. Unless you live in Wisconsin. In which case, I'm so sorry. Wisconsin is where, while everyone was busy over the weekend, Governor Scott Walker signed a bill repealing the 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act which made it easier for victims of pay discrimination to pursue legal redress. Republican state senator Glenn Grothman, a major champion of the charge to repeal the Act, explained to Daily Beast reporter Michelle Goldberg, "You could argue that money is more important for men."

Uh. Wrong. You could argue NOT and accurately reflect the reality of contemporary life. The most recent Department of Labor Statistics reveal that 40% of wives earn more than their husbands and, according to recent Pew Research studies, women are increasingly earning heads of household (22%). Lastly, due to divorce, widowhood or no marriage, more than half of children born to women under 30 have single, sole-breadwinning mothers. If the wage gap didn't exist, the poverty rate for single mothers would be half of what it is. Boys and men might still feeling a sluggish but strong pressure to provide for dependent women and children. And there are women who feel they are right in doing so. But, we are so far past the days when most women can either afford to or want to have a vicarious and precarious relationship with their income. Women need to be able to earn their own money while raising children. True "family values" would reflect an investment of time, money and political capital to helping them to this without either short-term income or long term security penalization.

Forget, for just a moment, debates about the inputs and analysis that produce these numbers year after year, and consider this: What do those numbers mean in terms of lost wages and spending power?

According to economists at The Wage Project, over the course of her lifetime a woman will earn, on average, this much less for her work than a man of comparable education: If she has a high school degree she will earn $700K less; a college degree, $1.2 million less and, gosh, if she has a professional degree that number is in excess of $1.8 million. Unless she's in Virginia, there she will lose more than $2,000,000 over the course of her working life. What if this gap didn't exist for women in Virginia? How much more could a woman afford during the course of a year?

• For starters, 1.8 years' worth or 95 more weeks of food
• Half a year's worth of utilities and mortgage payments
• More than 3,000 gallons of gasoline
• Eleven extra months of rent
• Oh, and, I almost forgot -- nearly three additional years of health insurance premiums for her family.

In addition, consider the ramifications of the lifetime wage gap in terms women's ability to:

• Save for retirement
• Accrue Social Security benefits
• Rely on pension plans and
• Save for lifetime goals (like buying a house).

For an equivalent, interactive map analysis for your state, go here. Here's a useful list of Zen Koans.

The broad impact on our economy is immeasurable loss. As succinctly articulated by Gloria Feldt, author of No Excuses: 9 Ways Women Can Change How We Think About Power: "For a thriving 21st century economy, America can't afford to lose half its population's contributions."

Mr. Grothman and Mr. Walker, like so many of their peers, are nostalgic for a bygone era based on the outdated and onerous-for-all idea of all-male, sole-breadwinner responsibility. Grothman continued: "I think a guy in their first job (sic), maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true." Personally, I'd rather attribute it to ignorance, paternalistic sexism and a blithe denial of modern economies. But, to be fair, I imagine that Mr. Grothman is simply trying to help sex-seeking young guys by making sure they have a "dining budget" to go a-courtin'. Pat Robertson captured the essence of this "man-up" approach to finances this weekend when he instructed Evangelical faithful men to "push forward and your wife will come along." I know, I know, some people don't want to get too feminist-thinky about money and sex and get befuddled by new-fangled ideas of equality and fairness.

Here's an incontrovertible fact: Regardless of education, experience in the workforce or child-rearing commitments, the gender pay gap remains a stubborn legitimate problem for American women and families (including men, if you can imagine). The effect is magnified for women of color who bear the brunt of the feminization of poverty. Passing legislation that hinders people's ability to seek justice, as Wisconsin just did or as Republican's in Congress have, denies and perpetuates a real problem with real day to day ramifications for people.

There are several dimensions to pay discrimination and a wage gap, many of them wielded as a defensive weapon to explain that the gap is due to women making "choices" that result in lower pay. The choices that women and their families make are a) rational, given the continued imbalanced dynamics of work/family responsibilities and b) false "choices" since both men and women are socially and culturally constrained and unable to consider equally competing and comparable options. Even after taking into account the issue of "choice" gender discrimination remains a marked component of the wage gap measurements.

"The gender pay gap is a product of the choices people think women and men should make, as well as the choices that they actually make," explains Catherine Hill, Director of Research for the American Association of University Women. "Women's work has long been undervalued, and traditionally female jobs continue to pay less than traditionally male jobs. The fact that women working full-time earn just 77 percent of their male peers shows us the scale of the problem."

Here are the major contributors informing the stats and the debate over their relevance:

1) The Maternal Wage Tax:
The way women with children are treated in the workplace is anachronistic. We penalize women and reward men when children enter the picture. The most minimal "real" pay discrimination period in a woman's life takes place when she is unmarried with no children, college educated in her twenties. In her book, The Richer Sex, reporter Lisa Mundy talks about this and predicts that we are on the verge of a "big flip" when women will out-earn men. But, despite the claim of her title, women are not richer and once children enter the picture, the erosion of wages continues to be substantial.

Motherhood is the prime "women make choices" time. Women often work in lower paying sectors, work (outside of the home, for pay) fewer hours a week and therefore fewer paid hours a year than men. They are less likely to get hired (according to The Motherhood Manifesto, 44% less likely) and when they are hired are paid on average 11% less than a childless woman. Their work life is also more likely than men's to be interrupted. Numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show the degree to which the idea that women stop working to care for children (thereby making choices that reduce their pay) is a matter of stereotyping and perception, not reality: 60 percent of women with children under the age of three and 77 percent of mothers with school-age children remain in the workforce. Secondly, these facts ignore the catch-22 that women and their families face due to the cost of working being higher than the gains. We generally still struggle to have family-friendly work cultures that create a more gender equitable work life playing field. This complicated fact is potentially the most important contributor to the gap's perseverance. Most men I know do not ever seriously consider paternity leave -- the long-term costs to their careers is too significant. Well, what do you think the long-term cost to a woman's career is? Equally significant. But more women make these "choices" than men do and as long as this gap exists the rational choice will be for the higher income earning partner to stay employed and the lower earning partner to stay at home. Gee, could't be because of laws that perpetuate unfair pay practices and enable family-hostile work environments? Or the cultural messages we send children about sex roles, could it?

Quoting Dr. Shelley Correll, who has studied the maternal wage gap for years, MomsRising put it this way:

"We expected to find that moms were going to be discriminated against, but I was surprised by the magnitude of the gap," comments Dr. Correll. "I expected small numbers but we found huge numbers. Another thing was that fathers were actually advantaged and we didn't expect fathers to be offered more money or to be rated higher." But that's what happened. A study by Jane Waldfogel of Columbia University, published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, found the same thing: Men don't take wage hits after having children, women do."

2) A persistently gender segregated work force
Women continue to make up the majority of low-wage earners in jobs such as teaching, administrative support and nursing. They also are more likely to be employed in the public sector, where wages are significantly lower than in the private sector. The number one job held by women in 2010: secretary. Why do women cluster in the lowest paying jobs? Is it a chicken or egg problem? First, many originated as extensions of "nurturing," "mothering" roles and "naturally" women want to do those out of the goodness of their little, womanly hearts. Second, these jobs are perceived as unskilled to some degree -- not needing either additional training or graduate degrees. Women chose these jobs for lots of reasons among them are that a) they are "traditional" women's jobs, b) people believe they are more "flexible" which is questionable at best, c) they do not require an investment in higher education, d) women are less likely to pursue traditionally "male" jobs -- which often require early childhood educational focus in the sciences and math (that's a whole other issue).

3.) Women get a lower return on educational investment in terms of pay.
Most people pursue education to improve their lot in life and earn more money. With each level of education, potential earning power increases, as does the lifetime value of an investment in education. Over the course of a man's life, he will make 84% more if he gets a Bachelor's degree than if he stops at high school. There is a correlating jump if he gets a professional degree. For him, each educational step yields a correlating increase in earnings. That's not true for women compared to men. So, whereas women with degrees make more than women without, they still make less than men with the same educational background. Because of wage discrimination, for a woman to make what a man with a high school degree makes, she has to get a college degree. This is true at every level of change in education. Georgetown University's College Payoff study, has details if you care to read more. Multiple studies have consistently found that women earn less than men with similar degrees in the same occupational categories -- for full-time work with the same level of experience. Women pursuing higher education do tend to study fields with lower earning potential however, so more English majors, less engineering. But there is an interesting problem with women seeking to diversify their educational and professional options: When women enter traditionally "male" fields they don't earn more money, but instead, salaries and prestige go down.

4) Last but not least, plain old-fashioned sex discrimination.
Many people refuse to believe that gender discrimination still exists. In addition to the issues above, debunking myths abound. The US Census American Factfinder reveals apples to apples, full-time pay inequities between women and men doing the same job. For example, women physicians and surgeons earned $120,971, compared with $190,726 for men and women securities, commodities and financial services sales agents earned $52,524, compared to $85,760 for their male counterparts. Multiple studies like the AAUW's 2012 The Simple Truth, controlled for factors known to affect earnings such as education and training, parenthood and hours worked, "college-educated women still earn five percent less than men one year out of college and 12 percent less than men 10 years out of college." Fully one quarter of the pay gap is unexplained despite attempts to account for differences. The gap is constant, well and consistently documented. Some people simply refuse to believe this can be the case.

Taking all of this into account might make it easier to understand why pay equity and its relation to long term wage earning equity goes from being a matter of individual discrimination and legal redress to broad systemized societal bias that need to be addressed through legislation and policy. It's also easier to understand how certain types portray women as gold-digging, dependent parasites, seemingly incapable of managing "their" finances. Imagine if men lived in a system where politicians (84% of whom were women) continuously enacted laws that imperiled their ability to earn a living fairly, increased their chances of poverty and long term insecurity? Imagine if the basis for policy was the idea that men's income would be optimized, ideally, through a relationship with a higher wage earning female? They too might make decisions that are rational, but on the surface seem self-defeating or mercenary.

Both "pay equity" statistics (although usefully illustrative) and the arguments debunking these statistics (such as Mr. Grothman's "suggestion" that it is more important for men to make money than for women) are distracting and misleading for three reasons: 1) both strongly suggest an incorrect zero-sum, either/or, women v. men framework for the issue. Valuing women's work and paying them fairly does not penalize men who by and large have to work in economic partnership with women now 2) the focus on "pay" instead of aggregated wages minimizes the issue of women's long-term financial vulnerability and impoverishment which have serious implications for society and 3) emphasizing "pay" obscures our country's lack of policy commitment to family friendly policies, maternal and paternal leave and other structures that support working mothers (and fathers) instead of penalizing them.

There are several ways to address these issues and they are all necessary. One is for companies to understand the value of family friendly policies from which men and women can both benefit. Many already pursue these policies to positive effect, but they are the minority. Lists of which companies are ranked for best work life balance benefits abound. Those that focus on the best companies for working mothers also tend to be the best for working fathers. The second is to make sure that legislation related to fair pay is not revoked or is passed when up for a vote. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which is vital to addressing this gap and eliminating loopholes, is up for a vote in Congress and may not pass. In an effort to stem the tide of women to the Democratic party, Republican candidates are now using words like "kitchen table" decisions. The problem is, deep down they still think the only people at the kitchen table are women and that they are making their decisions when their husbands come home after a long day at work. Otherwise, they wouldn't be systematically voting against fair pay provisions both at the state and federal levels. If you're in a clicktavist kind of mood be a Two Minute Activist get involved here.

Contact any of the following organizations to better understand compensation, legal issues, legislation and workplace culture as they relate to making pay more equitable and reducing lifetime wage loss for women:

American Association of University Women: excellent list of resources and action steps
National Committee on Pay Equity: extensive list of studies and practice guidelines
The Institute for Women's Policy Research
Catalyst
The Women's Law Center
The Working Mother Research Institute
The National Partnership for Women and Families
Momsrising
The Wage Project