Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (242738)	7/22/2005 12:50:00 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574386

Eric, you are presenting statistics on a board where many people don't like to think that logically. :) Just kidding. But your analysis is perfectly reasonable. For many years, women use to complain that they didn't get enough exec jobs. But then some studies came out that the # of women execs as a percentage of men execs represented the same ratio as percentage of women in the pool of qualified candidates. Another study showed how the number of women engineers and doctors correlated very nicely with the number of women studying to be engineers or doctors. It's all just common sense, but statistics in general can be very confusing to the uninitiated, even the simpler concepts.

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (242738)	7/22/2005 1:39:02 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574386

re:you want to restrict them to 10% of gov't representation. What is your second job......being an ayatollah? Are you going to be pushing for veils next? Let me try again - the numbers I posted for government jobs held by women is in the range of 10-20% therefore (I assume) the Supreme Court should at least reflect that number as a base and up to the number of women in the population 50% (to be equal/fair). That's not what you said initially. And I might add that the percentage numbers for women in important gov't jobs appear to be artificially low when compared to the participation of women in the general workforce. Its not news that the US is one of the few westernized nations that has yet to have a woman as president. The court currently reflects the pool of qualified candidates 2/9 approx. 22% soon going to 1/9 or 11% - lower but still within the range (barely). That pool statistic is important to Elroy but how important is it really when Bush's choice was someone who had been a federal court judge for only two years and previously had been in private practice? And the current pool ratio may be an indicator for where things are right now but I don't think its a good gauge for determining how many women justices should be on the Supreme Court. Women are 50% of the total population......I think that's the figure that should be the standard or benchmark........after all, the Court makes decisions that effect both men and women. And if presidents keep appointing nominees who stick around for 25 years....it could be a long time before another woman is appointed. People think Rehnquist is on his way out but prostrate cancer is not the serious disease it once was. In fact, its been found that many guys unknowingly have prostrate cancer but die of other diseases. Only after an autopsy is done are they found to have had prostrate cancer as well. If Rehnquist's overall health is good, he could kick this disease and be around another ten years. So unless affirmative action is forced on the President(s) to get the numbers to population numbers "I assume" it will most likely reflect an equal percentage to the available pool in the future as well. Like I said previously, I don't think Bush cared one way or another........I believe he had selected Roberts a long time ago.......first putting him into a federal judgeship to get him on the road to the SC. Frankly, he has so little experience its worrisome but then Bush wants his nominees to be relatively young so they stick around a long time. I understand that strategy. In case you didn't notice I have not expressed my personal opinion on whether it should reflect the pool or the population. I just presented the facts as they are. PS: How much do ayatollah's make? <g> More than all of us combined but then they are very thrifty and so probably don't benefit all that much from their wealth. <g>