Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

Why did Sarah Palin resign?

Personal scandal
 5 (17.2%)
Probable indictment
 7 (24.1%)
Just plain craziness
 3 (10.3%)
Looooong lead up to 2012
 4 (13.8%)
Something else
 2 (6.9%)
Some combination of the above
 8 (27.6%)

Total Members Voted: 29

Author Topic: The Thread on Politics  (Read 420378 times)

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5930 on: September 16, 2008, 09:23:02 AM »
it took how many posts for me to get you to even look at the legistorm...aye'm not giving up...mccain does pay females more than his male staff members...opposite of obama...

I looked at LegiStorm as soon as you posted the Murdock article.  Don't give yourself too much credit.

you need to do the math and take an average...

Why would I waste time doing this?  The average is already there in the article.  I have argued, along with Cady, and anyone else with 7th grade math skills, that the average doesn't tell us anything when the sample size is so small and in the absence of other information.  I don't know why you have such a hard time with this.  I have sought to explain it to you in several different ways, and I am giving up.


you are voting for obama no matter what....

This goes to show how little you pay attention to my posts or understand what I write.  It is extremely unlikely, actually, that I will vote for Obama.

aye want to see someone in the white house who is an efficacious embodiment of feminism...that is where aye am leaning...plus someone who understands the working woman...

 ::)  And when did this become your priority? If you cared about working women, you would want women like Lilly Ledbetter to be able to sue giants like Good Year after 20 years of discrimination.  You'd also care about parental leave, universal healthcare, and other social services.  Your answer to the problem of pay inequity would not be John McCain's: that women are underqualified and if they begin to measure up, the market will take care of everything. 
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 7072
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5931 on: September 16, 2008, 12:30:23 PM »

you obviously are ignoring the article because it has more information than you think...so like aye wrote before...you are just going to believe what you wish...so continue...

by all means...

point is...the transparacy device is very detailed...and mccain is better on the equity of pay issue at home...a

you just don't want to do the math...

I know exactly what it says in the article because you posted it at least three times in the five or so threads I read.  The article doesn't say that there is unequal pay for equal work at either office or that either McCain or Obama has discriminated in hiring or promotion of their senate staff.  The article says that of the 40 or 50 staffers in each office, McCain has more women and more women in higher-paid positions.  We don't know anything about these women or about the men in Obama's office.  We don't know how many of them were long-term volunteers before being hired, how many of them have worked in the office for a long time, how many of them have advanced degrees.  We don't know how many of the high-paid staffers in each office left to join the senators' campaigns, whether there are important figures on maternity or paternity leave, what the racial and ethnic background and class upbringing of these staffers are.  We don't know if the five top-paid advisors on one senator's staff make double the amount of the five lowest-paid advisors or if the salaries are roughly equivalent.  We don't know if one senator has more interns than the other, or if he makes an affirmative effort to hire female interns (which would then drag down the overall wage for women in the office) or if he hires more male interns because they remind him of himself (which would then drag down the overall wage for the men in the office).  The article doesn't tell us these or any of a 100 other things that would be useful to know before trying to figure out if there's any pattern or practice we should be concerned about.  And I'm just fine at math, thank you.

Your fruit stand example is inapt.  A senator's office is not like a fruit stand.  Senators need lawyers to draft and evaluate legislation and college students to run messages around.  They need chiefs of staff and envelope lickers.  Of course these people make different salaries.


ms. p...not the deroy murdock article...the  legistorm.com articles...look up barack obama...look up mccain...go through the staff members for the time period...write down their name...their job functions and how much they get paid...split it between men and women...put like job descriptions next to like job descriptions...it gives you a nice forensic financial breakdown...it has lawyers...assistants...press assistants...interns...

then find averages...

you will see mccain pays his women more than his men and with obama it is the opposite.


make your own assumptions...draw your own conclusions...aye just did the math...aye like what the transparency reveals...aye was going to vote for obama...these days aye don't know...aye have to say aye was disappointed with obama.


See, this is where you're going wrong. The averages.  In a comparative analysis, in order to make the claim that men are being paid more than women you can only compare like terms to other like terms.  Male Lawyers of 4 years of experience to Female Lawyers of 4 years of experience.  Male Interns who have only worked for a single summer to Female interns who have only worked for a single summer.  In other words, apples to apples.  What the heck are you taking averages for?  Averages are irrelevant.

Taking an average is not going to tell you anything at all about the specific male/female pay differentials.  Throwing all of the numbers into a the same single sum pot completely muddles like terms with unlike terms.  In other words, by taking an average you have to throw the apples in with the oranges and the pears and the bananas and the plantains.  That's not a valid comparative analysis.  That's a cluster #$*(.   You keep saying "do the math... do the math" but THERE IS NO MATH to do here.  It's a simple comparative analysis.  If you have to do any math, something is wrong.

Therefore, there's no mathematical support for the gender bias claim you, a self-proclaimed independent, seem intent on believing that was made by a website whose moniker is "Leading the Conservative Movement Since 1944" (notwithstanding your assertion that you are basing your belief of the article written by the conservative Human Events.com on facts they reference from the independent Legistorm without doing the proper comparisons).

Everybody else on this thread has provided more than enough examples of why taking an average in the way they're doing it here is wrong and paints the wrong picture. 

It is difficult to understand why an independent would vehemently stick to a conclusion that flies in the face of comparative analysis, logic, and evidence to the contrary.

"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."
Charles H. Houston

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5932 on: September 16, 2008, 12:51:53 PM »
Thank you, Sands.

I just want to add that I do think it's possible that, given a large enough sample size, and with a large enough reference group, the average male and female salaries in an organization could be relevant to bias claims.  If a big company has significantly lower percentages of women working in its highest-paid jobs than other, similar companies, and the numbers we're talking about are big enough to represent standard practices and not just a few selections, it may be evidence of gender discrimination.  (Looking at the lower end of the wage scale is more suspect unless you do a complex analysis of why certain workers are low-paid.  Some entry-level jobs may start off with low salaries but have the potential to turn into high-paid, professional or managerial positions -- e.g., legal intern in a government office.  Hiring a lot of women in such positions would depress the average female wage but probably represents, instead, either affirmative action or improved opportunities for young women.  Some low-wage jobs are just low-wage, dead end jobs.) 

In any case, this is, emphatically, not the case with respect to the facile comparisons of the McCain and Obama offices bluewarrior and his Hoover Institute friends are using  here.  These sample sizes are much too small, and we don't know how either office lines up with the senate as a whole or other individual offices with a similar number of home offices in places with a similar cost of living, etc.  For all we know at this point, McCain's office could be a bizarre outlier. 
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5933 on: September 16, 2008, 04:16:09 PM »
[img width= height=]http://www.lakewoodconferences.com/direct/dbimage/50161464/Aspirin.jpg[/img]

aspirin
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8173
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5934 on: September 16, 2008, 05:13:09 PM »

you obviously are ignoring the article because it has more information than you think...so like aye wrote before...you are just going to believe what you wish...so continue...

by all means...

point is...the transparacy device is very detailed...and mccain is better on the equity of pay issue at home...a

you just don't want to do the math...

I know exactly what it says in the article because you posted it at least three times in the five or so threads I read.  The article doesn't say that there is unequal pay for equal work at either office or that either McCain or Obama has discriminated in hiring or promotion of their senate staff.  The article says that of the 40 or 50 staffers in each office, McCain has more women and more women in higher-paid positions.  We don't know anything about these women or about the men in Obama's office.  We don't know how many of them were long-term volunteers before being hired, how many of them have worked in the office for a long time, how many of them have advanced degrees.  We don't know how many of the high-paid staffers in each office left to join the senators' campaigns, whether there are important figures on maternity or paternity leave, what the racial and ethnic background and class upbringing of these staffers are.  We don't know if the five top-paid advisors on one senator's staff make double the amount of the five lowest-paid advisors or if the salaries are roughly equivalent.  We don't know if one senator has more interns than the other, or if he makes an affirmative effort to hire female interns (which would then drag down the overall wage for women in the office) or if he hires more male interns because they remind him of himself (which would then drag down the overall wage for the men in the office).  The article doesn't tell us these or any of a 100 other things that would be useful to know before trying to figure out if there's any pattern or practice we should be concerned about.  And I'm just fine at math, thank you.

Your fruit stand example is inapt.  A senator's office is not like a fruit stand.  Senators need lawyers to draft and evaluate legislation and college students to run messages around.  They need chiefs of staff and envelope lickers.  Of course these people make different salaries.


ms. p...not the deroy murdock article...the  legistorm.com articles...look up barack obama...look up mccain...go through the staff members for the time period...write down their name...their job functions and how much they get paid...split it between men and women...put like job descriptions next to like job descriptions...it gives you a nice forensic financial breakdown...it has lawyers...assistants...press assistants...interns...

then find averages...

you will see mccain pays his women more than his men and with obama it is the opposite.


make your own assumptions...draw your own conclusions...aye just did the math...aye like what the transparency reveals...aye was going to vote for obama...these days aye don't know...aye have to say aye was disappointed with obama.


See, this is where you're going wrong. The averages.  In a comparative analysis, in order to make the claim that men are being paid more than women you can only compare like terms to other like terms.  Male Lawyers of 4 years of experience to Female Lawyers of 4 years of experience.  Male Interns who have only worked for a single summer to Female interns who have only worked for a single summer.  In other words, apples to apples.  What the heck are you taking averages for?  Averages are irrelevant.

Taking an average is not going to tell you anything at all about the specific male/female pay differentials.  Throwing all of the numbers into a the same single sum pot completely muddles like terms with unlike terms.  In other words, by taking an average you have to throw the apples in with the oranges and the pears and the bananas and the plantains.  That's not a valid comparative analysis.  That's a cluster #$*(.   You keep saying "do the math... do the math" but THERE IS NO MATH to do here.  It's a simple comparative analysis.  If you have to do any math, something is wrong.

Therefore, there's no mathematical support for the gender bias claim you, a self-proclaimed independent, seem intent on believing that was made by a website whose moniker is "Leading the Conservative Movement Since 1944" (notwithstanding your assertion that you are basing your belief of the article written by the conservative Human Events.com on facts they reference from the independent Legistorm without doing the proper comparisons).

Everybody else on this thread has provided more than enough examples of why taking an average in the way they're doing it here is wrong and paints the wrong picture. 

It is difficult to understand why an independent would vehemently stick to a conclusion that flies in the face of comparative analysis, logic, and evidence to the contrary.



aye'll twist some straw in that aye take mostly liberal sources and find bias and conservative sources to find bias...why was your eye drawn to the words "conservative"? however...the sampling and my own match ups shed a glimmer on how the two senators pay their staff...you can do it with many othe senators as well...barbara boxer...for example...we are working on hers today...the math is there to be figured if you take an hour and forty minutes to do it...for an actuary...less...

now aye am not saying that all pennies are accounted for since the legistorm says there may be some inconsistancy however...crunch the numbers...it is quite revealing


...

If you prick us, do we not bleed?  
  if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison  
  us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not  
  revenge? m.of v. w.shaka                                             speare

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8173
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5935 on: September 16, 2008, 05:13:57 PM »
now on to other issues...aye've been examining mccain for a while...aye am now focusing in on obama...and the manic way that just a few on this lsdb are behaving is symptomanic of psychological panic...aye hear many democrats and leftwingers are clawing and scratching through palin's life...more so than any of the other four candidates at the present time...perhaps it is because aye have been focusing more on leftwing propoganda more than rightwing...this is what aye meant earlier...when aye posted before palin was selected...


how much "obvious" and "rush-vetting" can be done in two months?  perhaps it will take the entire two months an until the thaw of spring...
this is already starting to backfire..aye think obama had a huge two digit margin in the polls over mccain in new york...a democratic foothold state...it is shocking to see that bam is not even at ten points ahead anymore...

aye'm telling ya...pa...florida...ohio...a tricky road...

If you prick us, do we not bleed?  
  if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison  
  us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not  
  revenge? m.of v. w.shaka                                             speare

jarhead

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2747
  • "i keeps it reeaal!"
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5936 on: September 16, 2008, 05:29:05 PM »
now on to other issues...aye've been examining mccain for a while...aye am now focusing in on obama...and the manic way that just a few on this lsdb are behaving is symptomanic of psychological panic...aye hear many democrats and leftwingers are clawing and scratching through palin's life...more so than any of the other four candidates at the present time...perhaps it is because aye have been focusing more on leftwing propoganda more than rightwing...this is what aye meant earlier...when aye posted before palin was selected...


how much "obvious" and "rush-vetting" can be done in two months?  perhaps it will take the entire two months an until the thaw of spring...
this is already starting to backfire..aye think obama had a huge two digit margin in the polls over mccain in new york...a democratic foothold state...it is shocking to see that bam is not even at ten points ahead anymore...

aye'm telling ya...pa...florida...ohio...a tricky road...




I don't have any statistics and dont pay attention to polls. Im voting for Barrack I love Barrack he's a great speaker but I think Hillary was the better candidate. I think the Dems made the same mistake they made in picking Kerry over Dean. I think that it doesn't bode well that as bad as the country is doing because of Bushanomics that McCaine is sooo close to Obama. Obama should be ahead in the polls by so much but he's not.  I'm voting Barrack, I wan't him to win, but I think Hillary was the better candidate....I'm worried.
...man, you was who you was before you got here

pirouette06

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
    • LSN
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5937 on: September 16, 2008, 05:58:16 PM »
now on to other issues...aye've been examining mccain for a while...aye am now focusing in on obama...and the manic way that just a few on this lsdb are behaving is symptomanic of psychological panic...aye hear many democrats and leftwingers are clawing and scratching through palin's life...more so than any of the other four candidates at the present time...perhaps it is because aye have been focusing more on leftwing propoganda more than rightwing...this is what aye meant earlier...when aye posted before palin was selected...


how much "obvious" and "rush-vetting" can be done in two months?  perhaps it will take the entire two months an until the thaw of spring...
this is already starting to backfire..aye think obama had a huge two digit margin in the polls over mccain in new york...a democratic foothold state...it is shocking to see that bam is not even at ten points ahead anymore...

aye'm telling ya...pa...florida...ohio...a tricky road...




I don't have any statistics and dont pay attention to polls. Im voting for Barrack I love Barrack he's a great speaker but I think Hillary was the better candidate. I think the Dems made the same mistake they made in picking Kerry over Dean. I think that it doesn't bode well that as bad as the country is doing because of Bushanomics that McCaine is sooo close to Obama. Obama should be ahead in the polls by so much but he's not.  I'm voting Barrack, I wan't him to win, but I think Hillary was the better candidate....I'm worried.

My concern with Obama has always been that he is another Kerry. He seemed unprepared and slow to respond to Republican attacks, and after all the damage that Bush and the Republicans have done to this country, HE is on defense much of the time. That is absurd. If he says one more time, "the American people are smarter than that," I am going to scream!!! No they are not - these are the same American people that fell for the Swiftboat attacks!!! I like the fight in Hillary, and I think that is missing from Obama. I know we would have seen Hillary by now, saying "Shame on you, John McCain..." I think Obama made a horrible mistake in not choosing Hillary. I love Biden ( I actually supported him first in the primaries), but Hillary would have boosted the ticket in ways that Biden cannot.

But all of that is water under the bridge. Obama is not perfect, but I still think he will win. I think he will win by a razor thin margin, but he will win.

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8173
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5938 on: September 16, 2008, 06:07:31 PM »
as an independent aye would not have examined mccain's negative ad suggesting that obama wanted to have "reproductive information" taught to four and five and six year olds...including teaching prevention of the human immunodeficiency virus...aye thought it was just more non-sense...but my dilemma with voting a third time for obama is now in jeopardy mode.

anyway as aye was viewing a leftwing media outlet aye saw that they were now putting mccain in the hiliary clinton category...that made me read on...aye thought...no...don't go there...don't call the man a "liar"...and as aye tuned in for evening news entertainment and found that the new negative campaign launched on mccain was no longer "bush's third term" {which is slowly, becoming apparently inncuous since obamas polls have been sagging since that disastrous trip to europe and the middle east}

...the evening entertainment news was now calling mccain a "liar"...

so aye had to go and check out the bill...

the new negative platform is that mccain is a "liar"...wow! that would make mccain just like hiliary...that can't be good.

with some obvious media bias aye had to look a few things up...


quite shocking! and a little short sighted...besides robbing five year olds of childhood...what kind of government do we want?...

shouldn't parents be the primary decision makers in their children's lives...

here read the bill...how much of this would you want a stranger to discuss these delicate matters your four five six or seven year old...

aye can't wait to hear who doesn't object...





SB99 - Illinois 2003
K-12 Comprehensive Sex Education Bill

(1) Factual information presented in course material and instruction shall be medically accurate and objective.
(2) All course material and instruction in classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.
(3) Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
(4) Course material and instruction shall present the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure
rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
(5) Course material and instruction shall stress that sexually transmitted infections are serious possible hazards of sexual activity or behavior. Pupils shall be provided with statistics based on the latest medical information citing the failure and success rates of all contraceptive methods in preventing unintended pregnancy and HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.
(6) Course material and instruction shall advise pupils that it is unlawful for males or females of any age to engage in sexual conduct or have sexual relations with a minor as specified in Article 12 of the Criminal Code of 1961.




what was obama thinking?


then aye remember a quote obama made once that kindergarteners should be able to exercise possible protection against sexual abuse...aye thought that sounded strange at the time...but now aye don't know...

so...let the state teach our 5 yr olds...forget about the parents...right?

If you prick us, do we not bleed?  
  if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison  
  us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not  
  revenge? m.of v. w.shaka                                             speare

Eugene Young

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 538
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #5939 on: September 16, 2008, 06:48:35 PM »
now on to other issues...aye've been examining mccain for a while...aye am now focusing in on obama...and the manic way that just a few on this lsdb are behaving is symptomanic of psychological panic...aye hear many democrats and leftwingers are clawing and scratching through palin's life...more so than any of the other four candidates at the present time...perhaps it is because aye have been focusing more on leftwing propoganda more than rightwing...this is what aye meant earlier...when aye posted before palin was selected...


how much "obvious" and "rush-vetting" can be done in two months?  perhaps it will take the entire two months an until the thaw of spring...
this is already starting to backfire..aye think obama had a huge two digit margin in the polls over mccain in new york...a democratic foothold state...it is shocking to see that bam is not even at ten points ahead anymore...

aye'm telling ya...pa...florida...ohio...a tricky road...




I don't have any statistics and dont pay attention to polls. Im voting for Barrack I love Barrack he's a great speaker but I think Hillary was the better candidate. I think the Dems made the same mistake they made in picking Kerry over Dean. I think that it doesn't bode well that as bad as the country is doing because of Bushanomics that McCaine is sooo close to Obama. Obama should be ahead in the polls by so much but he's not.  I'm voting Barrack, I wan't him to win, but I think Hillary was the better candidate....I'm worried.

My concern with Obama has always been that he is another Kerry. He seemed unprepared and slow to respond to Republican attacks, and after all the damage that Bush and the Republicans have done to this country, HE is on defense much of the time. That is absurd. If he says one more time, "the American people are smarter than that," I am going to scream!!! No they are not - these are the same American people that fell for the Swiftboat attacks!!! I like the fight in Hillary, and I think that is missing from Obama. I know we would have seen Hillary by now, saying "Shame on you, John McCain..." I think Obama made a horrible mistake in not choosing Hillary. I love Biden ( I actually supported him first in the primaries), but Hillary would have boosted the ticket in ways that Biden cannot.

But all of that is water under the bridge. Obama is not perfect, but I still think he will win. I think he will win by a razor thin margin, but he will win.

Hillary would have galvanized the right even more than the intellectual midget Palin has. Obama can't respond too harshly, or the media will portray him as an angry black man. He's almost POTUS, but he's still a black man in America...he has to be twice as good just to (try) to get on a (somewhat) level playing field.