Is Rachel Maddow sincere?

[unblock]

60. just to be clear, then, we're no longer talking about maddow getting it wrong in any way.

normally, somerby's blog is about people getting it wrong. facts wrong, misinterpreting data, etc.

not in this case, apparently, we're talking about maddow choosing the wrong statistic to focus on.
one which, by the way, carries less political punch.

besides, as i've mentioned elsewhere, some of that remaining 18% still may have a significant disciminatory cause, just not direct discrimination by the present employer. to whatever extent women have inferior qualifications and experience due to previous discrimination or the discrimination of others, this is still a problem (or several problems) albeit that they may need different solutions to address.

the only thing that's "wrong" here is somerby calling maddow to the carpet for getting anything wrong. if he thinks the 5% statistic, after controlling for various factors, is the most relevant, that doesn't change the 23% statistic before controlling for those factors, and it doesn't make maddow wrong to focus on that number -- provided she didn't mischaracterize it. and unless i missed it in somerby's blog, the only mischaracterization going on it that somerby drew a conclusion about the way maddow was thinking about the 23% number that is not supported by any of her quotes he put in his blog.