>>>>>>>>>IMHO, two totally different situations. In Obama's case, it's more an issue of taking a stance but doing the opposite. With Palin, it's typical political cleaning house and bringing those whom you trust into the fold.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Neither are good (except that what Palin did is expected and standard practice but I don't see any corruption there or professing one thing and doing another), but this issue with taking a public stance on equal pay and rights for women but not practicing it concerns me more.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You noted, of course, that the article doesn't mention whether those are all full-time staff or what their job titles and descriptions are, right? That article is insufficient to answer the question of whether he's giving equal pay for equal work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tamar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course position and responsibility is everything:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/36234
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And then I read this in the Toronto Star, which I realise, for having written anything criticising McCain, is nothing but a left wing propaganda rag, but read it anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/article/502839
>>>>>
>>>>>Interesting leadin to an article. I don't think I've ever premised an article with 'right wing proganda rag' or 'left wing propaganda rag' ...
>>>>
>>>>I assume Alan was referring to all the hoo-ha here the other day labeling the NY Times a left wing rag for having the temerity to run a news story critical of Sarah Palin.
>>>
>>>Got it in one. It continues to be the major debating point.
>>
>>Except that the NYT is not labeled a liberal paper because it has the temerity to run a news story critical of Sara Palin. I already posted the links showing where the labeling comes from including an article in the NYT itself... Premising a post with that or 'is nothing but a left wing propaganda rag' does not remove whatever historical bias a paper has (I really have no idea on the Toronto Star so I can't say), it only suggests that the article cannot stand on its own merit so the poster has to resort to deflection.
>>
>>I am not referring to either the article or the paper. Your premise makes it unworthy to read which is sad because it may in fact have merit, but now I won't know. I'm just so sick of this. If an article has merit or is of interest, just post it. Don't premise it with propaganda nonsense and partisan brooh ha ha or worst yet start another bout of party paenism here.
>
>That was my whole point. It no longer makes any difference. Merit is not a valid criteria any longer. It comes down to what constitutes the major debating point these days. Nobody tries to dispute the facts or non-facts in an article any more. The argument simply is made that the paper is left wing propaganda, and that seems to be enough for a lot of people around here. In fact, I'll go further by adding that in many cases (if not most), people don't even bother to read the articles. They just dismiss whatever might be in the article as left wing propaganda.
>
>I just figured I'd save people the time and energy they'd waste reading something they're simply going to dismiss out of hand anyway.

I've really only seen that happen once or twice here and then only by one or two people.