The American Spectator

Editor's Desk

Boycott ''Crossfire''?

By Wlady Pleszczynski on 4.25.02 @ 3:23PM

(Page 2 of 2)

PFOTENHAUER: That's a total, false construct. First of all, equal pay for equal work is something I think both the congresswoman and I fully support. It has been the law of the land since the early 1960s.

Anybody who practices discrimination on an individual basis should be prosecuted to the fullest. We all support that. What I take issue with, and what the Independent Women's Forum takes issue with, are these so-called studies, not academic research, not peer reviewed that are so methodologically flawed, as to be misleading that report to represent a huge gap in pay between similarly qualified men and women.

BEGALA: Oh, so there's no gap.

PFOTENHAUER: No.

BEGALA: Everything's just fine, right?

PFOTENHAUER: Paul, let's go back here. Let's look at the actual studies that are peer reviewed, where you can replicate the analysis and decide whether it withstands scrutiny. What you find out is that if you look at men and women, and you adjust for basic things, things that Statistics 101 students would have to adjust for, age, experience, continuous years in the workforce, and position in the company.

And what you find out is there is no wage gap. The recent study that's come out that purports that it's by the way...

BEGALA: So we're just victims of mass hysteria and self-delusion.

PFOTENHAUER: No, no, what it is is, if you see differences in relative compensation because of choices that people make. If you want to have a conversation about that, we can.

At that point, a chastened Begala disappeared from the conversation, as Pfotenhauer turned her expertise against her badly overmatched opposite, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D - N.Y.), who could only fall back on what the National Organization for Women had told her.

When Begala did resurface, it was to reply to Carlson. But again Pfotenhauer weighed in:

"Why don't we actually look at research, not political spin? And if you look at studies put forward by Cornell University, these are not politicians with a bill on the floor of the House. These are academicians and scholars who have to face boards and review. And college campuses tend to be liberal, not conservative. Www.iwf.org, that's all I have to say."

A commercial break saved Begala from any immediate further damage, but afteward Pfotenhauer continued to dominate the conversation, of which the following was merely one of her many impressive flourishes:

"Why are[n't] we talking about the success story that we've got here? Women, right now, earn the majority of undergraduate degrees. We earn the majority of Masters degrees. We outperform men in high school and college.

"Within the next generation, we are expected to earn the majority of Ph.D.s. Education is one of the primary drivers of income. The other is continuous years in the workforce. If we want to talk about the decisions that are made societally for women to take time out, that's an interesting conversation."

Begala could barely get a word in edgewise, unless it was to quip, in response to Pfotenhauer's comment that the Supreme Court has eroded self-governance, that the high court had done so "by stealing the election."

The lesson: Send in the right Republican and soon enough Begala will be threatening to boycott his own show. The only question now is whether someone like Nancy Pfotenhauer will ever be asked back.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Education, Television, Law, Supreme Court