Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

I generally agree with that, and sometimes the law corrects injustice when public opinion has not gone far enough. But mostly the playing catch up.

 

 Today’s ruling isn’t much of an issue in California. It’s already illegal to consider race, ethnicity or sex in admissions here for public universities due to proposition 209. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about what big business thinks of affirmative action in college admissions? Y'know, the people whom conservatives supposedly love, admire, and pander to.

 

First story on today's ep of Marketplace says bug business is just fine with affirmative action in colleges. Dozens of companies, such as Apple and Proctor & Gamble, signed an amicus letter asking the SCOTUS to keep affirmative action. And no, it's not because they've developed a social conscience. No, it's business. Cold, hard, calculating greed. Diversity is profitable.

 

https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace/the-business-impact-of-todays-affirmative-action-ruling/

 

In similar vein, one of the business columnists in The Economist reported on the effect of laws that ban state pension funds from investing in any company that claims to adopt environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals in its practices, and investment firms that reject such companies. The result is higher fees for investors and, therefore, lower returns overall. For a private investor, so what? If you want only to invest in ostentatiously asocial companies, it's your money. Or only companies run by Evangelicals, or Hindu Brahmins, or only firms whose names start with J. Whatever. But state governments aren't investing their own money. It's the state employees' money, or taxpayer money, and the fiduciary duty is to seek highest returns and lowest fees, not culture-war peacocking. "Shun Woke, Go Broke."

 

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/03/02/the-anti-esg-industry-is-taking-investors-for-a-ride

 

It's a different world. Smart business executives accept this. Though Vivek Ramaswamy seems to be cleaning up with his "Anti-Woke" brand, even if his investors might not be...

 

Dean Shomshak

Edited by DShomshak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, can't say we didn't expect it, but still...

 

SCOTUS backs a business saying "go somewhere else" rather than back a message they disagree with, meaning laws barring discrimination against gay people are nullified.

 

It's nuanced...from NYT:

 

Quote

The 6-to-3 ruling handed down on Friday turned on the First Amendment. Because the designer, Lorie Smith, opposes same-sex marriage, the majority said, the state cannot compel her to make sites implicitly endorsing such unions’ legitimacy as a condition of getting into the general wedding website business.

 

But at an earlier stage of the litigation, both sides stipulated that the graphic and website design services Ms. Smith provides are “expressive,” according to the majority opinion, written by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

 

The ruling leaves unanswered what other services related to marriages — like printing invitations, photographing a ceremony, providing flower arrangements, catering food, bartending or renting out space —  qualify as expressive enough to allow their providers to refuse to serve L.G.B.T.Q. couples under the First Amendment.

 

Even if it's narrowly applicable now, tho, we know the religious right will make every effort to expand it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

Well, can't say we didn't expect it, but still...

 

SCOTUS backs a business saying "go somewhere else" rather than back a message they disagree with, meaning laws barring discrimination against gay people are nullified.

 

It's nuanced...from NYT:

 

 

Even if it's narrowly applicable now, tho, we know the religious right will make every effort to expand it.  

 

The best part about this case is that the plaintiff was never actually asked to design a LGBT website in the first place.  The case is entirely theoretical.

 

The second best part about this case is that it is now totally unclear when businesses are "allowed" to discriminate against protected classes of people, especially in light of the recent affirmative action case.

 

The third best part is that the ruling might allow discrimination against MAGAs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Well, can't say we didn't expect it, but still...

 

SCOTUS backs a business saying "go somewhere else" rather than back a message they disagree with, meaning laws barring discrimination against gay people are nullified.

 

It's nuanced...from NYT:

 

 

Even if it's narrowly applicable now, tho, we know the religious right will make every effort to expand it.  

Great way to end Pride month. I'm just....disgusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we're going to have to live with the Court being like this for far too long.  If anything, while Thomas and Alito are the 2 oldest, and most extreme, members, what we've seen is that the Republicans have no reservation about ensuring the Court remains firmly in their grasp by manipulating the nomination/confirmation process to suit their goals.

 

Simon's plan to go ex-pat is gaining more appeal.

 

Going back to that...the Albertson's I was at today, not my usual, and often a bit of a step down from it...did have Angel's Envy Port Cask, in the locked cabinet.  I passed.  I'll be at the usual one Monday, I'll see what they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Are we sure DeSantis is even smart enough to realize what the problem with phosphogypsum might be?

 

He's smart enough to realize who signs the donation checks.

 

https://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/2023/06/14/florida-lawmaker-sponsored-radioactive-roads-bill-mosaic-threw-him-fundraiser/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the rioters are being written off as "radicals" and "criminals." It sounds like the official government position is going to go back to the myth that all French citizens are equally French, and continue to ignore the real financial and social inequalities between ethnicities that helped fuel these riots.

 

Regimes around the world need to accept that pretending your society is perfect when and where it isn't, always blows up in your face eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.politico.eu/article/france-riots-politics-boy-shot-dead-by-police/amp/
 

Interesting article on the French riots from Politico. 
 

“But this remains largely an insurrection without aims: a scream of fury, an anarchic rejection of even local forms of government; an act of gang-warfare writ large; a competition in performative destruction between disaffected young men in suburbs and towns across France.”

Edited by Iuz the Evil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...