J.C.MacSwell

Has that been confirmed? Another possible escalation is a declaration of a no fly zone over Ukraine backed by NATO. That would no doubt support the resistance, but would be even less acceptable to Putin than the many countries of NATO supplying Ukraine with lethal weapons including anti-tank and anti-aircraft.

Inching closer to banning Russia from Swift: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/momentum-grows-ban-russia-swift-payment-system-2022-02-26/ "Italy, which had been reluctant to take that step, on Friday said it would not veto proposals to ban Russia and pledged to continue working in unison with its EU partners. Germany, which has the EU's biggest trade flows with Russia, is also open to banning Russia from SWIFT, but must calculate the consequences for its economy, Finance Minister Christian Lindner said on Friday. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his country strongly supported barring Russia from the system. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called on leaders of NATO member countries on Friday to take immediate action to remove Russia from SWIFT. EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said a decision on SWIFT could happen in the "coming days." White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said removing Russia from SWIFT "remains an option on the table" and underscored President Joe Biden's preference to take steps together with allies." For Ukraine, it cannot come soon enough.

My working definition is close to that one, and very far from the latter.

To paraphrase W. Churchill "We have not yet begun to sanction!" Sanctions that aren't cherry picked to avoid any pain to the countries administering them might have a better chance of getting results. The Germans, just as an example, have to be willing to turn the thermostats down and put on sweaters, and other countries need to be willing to do the equivalent.

Hopefully protests in Russia can gather some momentum. It would be nice if our free World leaders could show a fraction of their courage and enough solidarity to put truly significant sanctions in place. Interesting perspective from former long time Chess World Champion who has opposed Putin repeatedly: A vocal critic of the Russian leadership is Garry Kasparov, the chess grandmaster who ranked world number one repeatedly for 20 years before turning his attention to politics. He’s telling leaders to “help Ukraine fight against the monster you helped create.”

Not as savvy as you though, Donald. It probably took you no more than a couple of minutes to realize "peace keeping" wasn't the plan at all.

Does it not go to infinite in a 3D universe also? (obviously not in this one, but we just don't know how the formula we know well should change at small scales)

I wonder how the inhabitants of the Falklands, mostly of British descent, feel about that?

Same occupation =/= same work or same job. So even their unproven claims don't indicate that the pay gap is from being paid less for the exact same work. It's mostly due to reduced opportunity. You are essentially claiming that the pay gap is not mainly from reduced opportunity, but more from getting paid less even when getting the same opportunities. None of your links support that.

"Unless otherwise specified, the EPI analyses throughout this piece use data on hourly wages of all workers, not just full-time workers. Technically, this is an adjusted gender wage gap measure because the weekly or annual gender wage gap would allow hours of work to differ. An hourly wage gap will not capture the direct effect of differences in hours or weeks worked, but it will capture the indirect effect of wage differences due to the effect of hours on hourly wages. This limited adjustment allows us to compare women’s and men’s wages without assuming that women, who still shoulder a disproportionate amount of responsibilities at home, would be able or willing to work as many hours as their male counterparts. Examining this “raw” gap, we hope to have a more thorough conversation about the ways a large basket of factors interact and create the wage gap women experience when they cash their paychecks. Of course, our answers to questions about the wage gap also draw on the work of other researchers, who may use different measures. Claudia Goldin for example uses earnings of full-time full-year workers."

From that link on how they justify their massaging of their the data (the raw they don't provide): "However, the adjusted gender wage gap really only narrows the analysis to the potential role of gender discrimination along one dimension: to differential pay for equivalent work. But this simple adjustment misses all of the potential differences in opportunities for men and women that affect and constrain the choices they make before they ever bargain with an employer over a wage. While multivariate regression can be used to distill the role of discrimination in the narrowest sense, it cannot capture how discrimination affects differences in opportunity." In a nutshell: They are ultimately blaming differences of opportunity as the main driver for the gender pay gap.

My position doesn't ignore it. That's why I used the word generally. It's simply a relatively minor element in the gender pay gap. That's a distraction from the problem of equal opportunity and the problems (and/or non problems) of career choices made by women, or to some extent forced on women.

It is generally because they don't get the same jobs. Read your link. The arguments are essentially that it's not by an individuals choice, and covers a number of reasons why they get different jobs. (women's vs men's typical choices of career paths is obviously a factor also but the attempt is to downplay it) Don't let the opening statement fool you: "April 2 is Equal Pay Day, and, at least for one day, attention will be focused on the fact that women do not earn as much as men for working the same jobs" There is nothing in the article that supports that position.

The route to mitigating any unfairness in the gap is through equal opportunities, if that is what you are asking.

This is generally not true. The 80-85% pay gap is from not getting the same jobs, not from being paid less for doing the same ones.

...INow appoint INow to the Supreme Court...for reasons I won't go into but hold to be self evident... JC MacSwell 2026

Setting aside the mostly waiting to be born part...I'm sure the progress has been slower than you would have liked, and maybe more painfully achieved...but it's been there.

I think there is something to be said for less transparency in this regard. When H,W. Bush announced the Clarence Thomas appointment, whether true or not he announced him as the best candidate available. I think it's regrettable that Biden's ultimate choice cannot be allowed that same level of respect. It's quite possible that she would deserve it.

That's what I'm saying, even while agreeing that either or both could fairly be considered advantages in getting the appointment, over some others. To help put this home, if Biden had specifically excluded indigenous women from consideration I think everyone would see the problem with it. The fact that he did so, excluded indigenous women (and others) along with overrepresented white males seems to have clouded the fact that this type of discrimination is wrong. It may not be the worst of identity politics, but it's still wrong.

If, for example, you exclude 93% of a population as opposed to half...that's not fundamentally different but I would hope that you don't need it explained how it is substantially and significantly different.

When the qualifications are stated as excluding all others from consideration, and include both sex and race to the degree in this case, I find it substantially and significantly different. If he had stated it as having someone particular in mind that would not be the same; but Implicit in his announcement, whether he realizes it or not is that a black female would not get chosen otherwise... that he could find a better candidate if he didn't limit himself in this manner. He should have just made his choice. If he felt it was important enough to choose a black female he should have just done it without announcing that sex and race was paramount. I'm sure whoever he chooses will have other attributes and qualifications that deserve focus. Has any reporter asked him why indigenous females were excluded from consideration? As for the argument that the Republicans are the same, or worse, I really don't blame anyone for making that argument...I mean what else do you have?

I don't see a problem with appointing a black female judge to the SCOTUS. I don't even see a problem with considering someone being from an underrepresented/unrepresented group to hold that as an advantage in the choice. But to announce that you intend to pick from only black females as a limiting criterion is simply wrong IMO, and also kind of dumb, also IMO. He should have just made his choice, and announced her as the best candidate available. Why burden her with a "best available Black Female" label? Why announce to other minorities (or for that matter anyone) that regardless of their qualifications they were not wanted, and ineligible, for a job they may in fact be most qualified for, and have worked hard to become qualified for? Why, but for identity politics and for the purposes of virtue signalling would he announce that? If they, Biden and the Senate, pick one with anything close to the level of integrity of Susan Collins they'll be doing well. ...and as Collins pointed out, a black female should be a welcome addition to the SCOTUS..but Biden has handled it poorly.

Come on. Are you against women's hockey? I think they are just are just celebrating one of Canada's early Women's hockey Teams, the Fernie Swastikas... A symbol chosen for good luck and peace!

Not much chance for the reward then...

A full cat? My understanding is that it is highly unlikely...approaching but not reaching zero probability. (unlike the possibility that my understanding is wrong possibly approaching and reaching 100%)