Your original complaint was that Scotland couldn't start off without it's "share" of debt, remember? That Scotland would still be tied 18 different ways at the hip to what remained of the UK? And - again - there's the fact that Scotland wouldn't end up as another Greece or Spain because they have most of the UK's natural resources, chiefly the oil-rich North Sea.
At the bottom of a gravity well? Check. Ages of warning that an attack is incoming? Check. Horribly fragile base where any crack in your pressure dome will kill you? Check. Something tells me the moon will be as militarily relevant to a battle of earth as control of the ocean floors. If you want to get spectacular, I'd rather go out to the asteroid belt and find a suitably big rock (read: not a dino killer, not just a light show) you could aim at earth. The timing had better be just right though, if you're off by just a matter of hours that crater might end up on the wrong side of the planet. Bonus points for drilling into and blowing it up at a suitable distance, it'll do more damage as buckshot.
Did you even read the article?!? No, the claimed goal of "equal pay for equal work" is still not with us.
Did you??? The whole damn point was that the pay is the same - or even more - when you're actually looking for equal pay for equal work, instead of equal pay regardless of position or education or hours worked on the job.
Before getting to articles, did you read the first and second sentences in a three sentence post?
The classic "wage gap" complaint has always been based on ignoring the "hours worked" gap. Men work most overtime hours, whereas women hold most part time jobs.
If you're a woman, would you expect to earn more at a full-time job than a man working part-time? Of course you would.
If you're a woman, would you expect to earn more than a man if you work overtime while he works 9 to 5? Of course you would.
Of course, now you have your "wage gap", which in reality is a "work gap".
So, did you read just one paragraph and miss out the rest of the article?
Did you? It's comparing equal pay for equal work and education.
False. Completely false. Why do you persist in this nonsense?
Women, in the same career field as a man, almost always makes less.
Not if she's working the same hours and has the same experience, she's not. Men get paid more because they work more.
Evidence. The classic "wage gap" complaint has always been based on ignoring the "hours worked" gap. Men work most overtime hours, whereas women hold most part time jobs. So in reality, the claimed goal of "equal pay for equal work" has been with us for quite some time.
Even among childless women there is a significant discrepancy in salaries for similar jobs.
Indeed - they make more money than their male colleagues.
skills-matched cohorts of male and female employees show a wage and career security discrepancy in favour of men in almost any study you care to mention
You mean an hours-worked discrepancy. Men put in the majority of overtime hours, and the vast majority of 60+ hour work weeks. The "76 cents on the dollar" canard is based on ignoring overtime and focusing on "skills" and "positions". If you're a woman, and you worked 10 hours more per week than a male colleague in the same position, you'd damn well expect to be paid more money as well.
but it conspicuously never flips around the other side
Another one gone
Another one gone
Another meme bites the dust
"Oh it's so unfair, that women don't have to register for the draft, in spite of the fact that volunteer female soldiers have been fighting for decades to even have the chance at front-line combat duties"
You realize you're swapping choice for responsibility, right? Lots of men chose to volunteer for the military before they were drafted, does that mean that millions weren't drafted into service?
There's a difference between men who believe in men's rights, and the Men's Rights Movement. Unfortunately it's the latter who are allowed to control the issues.
And then there's the SJW's who troll the shit out of MRA's for shits and giggles. Ask anyone who calls themselves an MRA and they'll tell you that fairness in custody and divorce court are in his top three issues.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but total solar insolation on the lower 48 is 46,700 Quads/year, compared to that the total electricity usage of the USA at 38.2 quads/year is a rounding error, the albedo effect from heavy clouds created by El Nino or heavier than average snowfall in the winter probably has several times more effect on the strength of winds than if we were to tap 100% of our electricity needs through wind.
Stored solar thermal exists, it might not be as cheap as coal without coals externalities included in the retail price, but it's doable and switching over baseloads to it would cost at most a few tenths of a percent of GDP for developed nations.
Couldn't you just as well say "Fantasy is about considering and exploring the human ramifications when certain aspects of reality are changed"? If you don't care about the science, you're just using sci-fi as window dressing to take you somewhere else, like Avatar is essentially Dances with Wolves with a ton of fancy gadgetry. You can do a historic war movie like 300 or contemporary one like Enemy at the Gates or a futuristic one like Independence Day and it's often the same story of a desperate stand against overwhelming forces with everything in the balance. For that matter, so could many of the great battle scenes in LotR that don't deal with the ring. It's only occasionally the science is an essential plot item and rarer still that it has any real scientific substance. In Star Trek, they just say "beam me up, Scotty" and you're back on the Enterprise, it might just as well have been Gandalf throwing a teleportation spell. That essentially just makes it futuristic fantasy, with sufficiently advanced technology to make it indistinguishable from magic.
No, you're doing it all wrong. What you need to do with facts that disagree with State Department propaganda is to lazily label them as conspriacy theories and call it a day.
No matter what the West does or does not do someone somewhere will find a way to blame us.
How is it not the fault of the West?
The people of the Middle East didn't ask Great Britain to bring it's imperialistic dick and draw up a dozen countries out of nothing after WWII, nor install monarchs to sell oil cheaply to British Petroleum while the citizens were left to fend for themselves.
The people of the Middle East didn't ask for the Palestinians to pay the price for Nazi war crimes by seizing land for the benefit of immigrants from Europe.
The people of the Middle East didn't ask England and America to violently overthrow the democracy of Iran after it dared lay claim to the benefits of oil production, and installed the brutal Shah who ruled for decades.
The people of the Middle East didn't ask the CIA to put their stooge, Saddam Hussein, in power in Iraq, nor launch an invasion of Iran.
The people of the Middle East ask for American support for every brutal dictator in the region, whether it be Egypt or Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Hint: There were no drone attacks in Syria nor US support for the rebels when Assad's own people tried to rebel against him and he proceeded to gas them
Hint: there is no civil war in Syria, and Assad never ordered gas attacks.
Guns and fighters and money come from Assad's enemies, not Syria. And who is stupid enough to believe that Assad would order gas attacks the day weapon inspectors arrived in the country? Or why he would suddenly use them when his military was making gains against the opposition, instead of the year before when the Syrian government was losing ground?
This is as asinine as whining about what a mess indian and black communities were in 1900, and whining some more when someone mentions slavery or the Trail of Tears.
"Flattery is all right -- if you don't inhale." -- Adlai Stevenson
