J.C.MacSwell

Who will host/moderate the discussion? Surely not Belarus? I would be concerned with both the safety of the Ukrainian delegates and any time for Russia to reorganize and resupply their troops.

Short cease fire upcoming? Ukrainian delegation will meet with Russian delegation on Ukraine-Belarus border: https://uacrisis.org/en/ukrainian-delegation

...don't wash, don't rinse, but repeat...

Pick it up within 5 seconds and quickly put it back on the bottle: https://kidshealth.org/en/kids/5-seconds.html#:~:text=What's the 5-Second Rule,in 5 seconds or less.

We are spending millions a day to try to stop this. Actually from looking like anything at all. Just not intentionally.

Partial removal of Russian access to Swift: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/eu-russia-swift-sanctions-1.6366084 Better than getting bogged down in debate for all or none. Please keep them coming.

I find myself there as well, while hoping somehow sanctions can become strong enough for immediate effect.

Sad that we have to hope for a sizeable Russian body count to help deter the Russians, even while we likely care more for them than Putin does, and while the hoped for effect is so indirect given the lack of political power of the Russian people.

...assuming of course, we aren't already on it.

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