The Observation Deck

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2 ... han-obama/

Obama's 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama's average male employee earned $54,397.

Obama's 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.

[O]n average, Obama's female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama's campaign website condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1

By contrast, female employees of Sen. John McCain fare much better. They actually average more in salary, $55,878, than their male counterparts. Women in McCain's Senate office make $1.04 for every dollar men take home. Furthermore, LegiStorm's figures show that McCain places more women in positions of influence than Obama does. Of Sen. Obama's twenty highest paid advisers, just seven are women. McCain counts 13 women among his 20 highest paid staffers. McCain certainly seems to be comfortable with women in positions of power, as evidenced by his selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Should they be elected, Palin will be the highest ranking, and highest paid, woman in the federal government.

I am beginning to see a pattern here...

First off the figures in that article are suspect. Are we talking about John's "highest paid staffers" when they figure the earnings. Or all of the staff like they seem to be doing to Barack.

Anyway, I fail to see what you are getting at. Nobody is bashing Sara for being a women. They are bashing her for being a 2nd rate politician.

Bill Call wrote:

Mark Moran wrote:Much Clearer Now

.....................OK, much clearer now.

The left wing in this country is consumed by hate. Will hatred win an election? We will soon see.

Eisel, you are a stitch.

From the article:

"In short, these statistics suggest that John McCain is more than fair with his female employees, while Barack Obama -- at the expense of the women who work for him -- quietly perpetuates the very same pay-equity divide that he loudly denounces. "

Actually, from the perspective of social science and statistics, thus from the perspective of rationality, the offered statistics do no such thing.

They demonstrate that an average marked to gender is different, and that it is higher for women who work on McCain's staff.

However, this has nothing to do with what evidence would count in support of an argument about fairness. This is a simple category error given that aggregate averages say nothing about fairness, and can say nothing about fairness.

I can illustrate this simply:


Group A Group B

Female Admiral $10 Male Admiral $10
Male deckhand $1 Female deckhand $1

So, do we learn that Group A is fairer to females, or do we rather learn that Admirals make $10 irrespective of their gender?

There is only one correct answer in logical terms.

Group A Group B

Female Admiral $10 Male Admiral $10
Male deckhand $1 Female deckhand $1

So, do we learn that Group A is fairer to females, or do we rather learn that Admirals make $10 irrespective of their gender?

There is only one correct answer in logical terms

lol....

some years ago I stumbled across a poll reported somewhere which mentioned Republicans being more likely than Democrats to prefer women on top during intimate congress. This is one thing I have in common with Republicans, mostly because my abdominal muscles tend to get numb or tremory very fast.

my impression of watching campaign commercials and news clips of campaign commercials is that the campaigns are pure balogna. I don't care what the campaign advisers are being paid, because their product appears to be pure balogna. (don't ask me to quantify that). I am 100 percent less likely to donate money to any presidential campaign for the remainder of human history each and every time I see a presidential campaign commercial.

To quickly summarize Mr. Costa, "Intimate...Balogna".